|
Tumble Through Single Action
Move
Source Core Rulebook pg. 240 2.0
You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy. Attempt an Acrobatics check against the enemy’s Reflex DC as soon as you try to enter its space. You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.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.
Failure Your movement ends, and you trigger reactions as if you had moved out of the square you started in.
through
adverb
1.
expressing movement into one side and out of the other side of an opening, channel, or location.
This question is related to the issue with tumble through and using a tiny character. But it goes further and tries to get to the bottom of the issue.
There are two parts of this action. One is the stride - this can go any direction, can change direction, etc. as long as it is within the movement allowed to a PC.
Then there is the move through the space of one enemy part. What does through mean for this part?
1) Can you move 'through' a gargantuan creature with 15 feet movement by clipping an edge?
2) Can you move 'through' a creature that is in the corner of a room
3) Can you move 'through' a creature with 10 foot movement by moving into that square and back?
4) Can you move 'through' and stay inside that space (tiny creature - there is a separate thread for this question)
So more or less the question is:
Does through mean
a) you enter and exit at least a single square occupied by an enemy (back and forth allowed)
b) you enter a square occupied by an enemy and leave it out on a different side (clipping allowed)
c) you enter a square occupied by an enemy and leave it on the opposite side (you have to exit in a position flanking your entry position)
d) you enter the square of an enemy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly wouldn't insist on a straight line through. For example, if a monster was guarding an intersection of two 5ft corridors, I should be able to tumble through the monster to take the left or right corridor, not just the far corridor.
I don't think I'd allow in and out in the same space though, that doesn't seem like "through" to me.
Clipping edges seems fine to me.
I'm not really sure about staying in the square.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I think the purpose of tumble through makes this pretty clear in most situations: If you couldn't get from one square to another because it's blocked by an enemy, then you can attempt to do so by tumbling through said enemy with occupied spaces working like difficult terrain as long as you get a success and have enough movement. This just kind of makes sense, but I think is also backed up by the wording in Movement and Encounters:
You can move through the space of a willing creature. If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through that creature’s space using Acrobatics...
Then there's the question of gaining panache or otherwise wanting to tumble through without actually needing to get to a space you otherwise couldn't get to. This is a little more vague IMO, but considering that typically the creature could be blocking you in a variety of ways I'd run it as simply requiring the character to leave the creature's space(s) in a different location from where they started.
|
|
I think I'm pretty much in agreement with Ascalaphus.
And yes - it is the swashbuckler and panache that creates lots of tumble around because I want to get panache.
To add to this - there is this feat:
Single Action Feat 6
Swashbuckler
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 91
You tumble around your foes, expertly avoiding their reactions. Stride up to half your Speed and roll an Acrobatics check. Compare the result to the Reflex DC of each foe whose reach you began in or enter during the movement, in sequence.
So in my view:
if there is a medium or small creature in a corner of a room - either tough - you can't tumble through - use Vexing Tumble - if you have it.Similar a large creature blocking a 10foot square. If you want to stay on the same side as you start - use Vexing Tumble and not Tumble through.
The vexing tumble also should allow you to end up in the same square.
But lately I see lots of 'tumble through' actions that seem 100% ok as a vexing tumble but non of the swashbucklers seem to have this feat and therefore use tumble through
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, uh, I don't think you're agreeing with Ascalaphus with that corner example. They said that they'd allow it around a corner, just not going in and right back out where you started, which makes sense to me given that no mention of straight lines is given.
Vexing Tumble has 3 benefits:
1. On a success you don't trigger reactions
2. You don't need to move through the creature's space at all. You can use it to simply reposition yourself if you so choose and still could gain panache.
3. The foe is flat-footed on a crit
I think you're reading a little too much into #2. Even without it, as long as you are moving through the enemy's space (which to me means entering and exiting in different squares, but other definitions are valid as well) you can use tumble through.
Swashbucklers may gain panache from it, but it's also a general movement ability that everyone has in order to attempt to get to otherwise blocked off spaces. It would be odd to have absolutely no way to go around a corner that someone's blocking but be perfectly able to attempt to go straight through them in a narrow corridor.
P.S. You know, I was just thinking... the name of Tumble Through is kind of weird. Where's the tumbling coming from? I feel like that would be a very bad way of trying to get through an enemy's square given the lack of control you have after starting the tumble. Since it's acrobatics, I would say maybe... weave through? But that just sounds dumb. Hmmm... I guess tumble's fine, lol
|
|
Oh - the reason I agreed with Ascalaphus is that I think a single enemy shouldn’t block a corridor x-junction. So RAI this should work.
At the same time tumble in place’ using ‘tumble through doesn’t seem RAI to me but I would like to know if by RAW this is allowed or not.
Im my view this would need Vexing tumble to do.
|
|
Here are the two examples that triggered it:
1) swashbuckler fights gargantuan enemy. He has not enough movement to tumble through to the other side 20*2+5 = 45 but he can easily tumble across a corner of the creature
2) swashbuckler fights 2 large creatures (15 foot reach) in a 10 foot wide corridor. He can’t tumble through a corner as that ends in a wall, he can’t tumble through to the other side as that space is occupied another enemy. The space next to him is occupied by an ally. So he tumbles in place using the tumble through action.
During the adventure I allowed both - but I have second thoughts on 2)
Fair enough. I think in case #2 mechanically it's not really tumbling through, and thematically it doesn't really fit the purpose of the action, so it probably "shouldn't" be allowed.
However, personal opinion time: For the purposes of not punishing the player on what I personally see as a technicality I'd allow them to roll the acrobatics check anyway and just RP the way that they gain Panache from that check differently. Perhaps they do a cool backflip in front of them, using the movement that would be necessary to tumble through (and triggering any relevant reactions as if they entered their square). I just feel like that fits the flavor of swashbucklers more, even if it doesn't really fit tumble through. I'd also make sure they know that I'll only allow it this one fight, and after that you have to make sure to leave room to exit on a different square next time, because playing around limitations like that can be fun: just not when the player was caught off guard and thought it worked differently.
This is where Vexing Tumble would come in handy. Because you could do that in front of this Gargantuan creature without having to move into or out of their space.
What Aw3som3-117 is suggesting would be to give part of the benefits of that feat. Specifically the part about gaining panache on a successful skill check.
Personally I am fine with that (probably a houserule). I think it should be possible by default for a swashbuckler to gain panache from tumble through even if they don't go through the space of the enemy. As long as they do it within reach of the enemy it would be sufficient for gaining panache. There wouldn't be any other benefits to the action other than gaining panache though. Not having to put yourself way out of position behind the enemy lines is enough of a benefit already.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are getting hung up on the name of the action and introducing your own prejudices to the mechanic of the action.
Nothing in the action says you have to exit the enemy's square in any particular direction. The mechanics are simple. You stride, attempt to enter a space occupied by an enemy by making an Acrobatics check, then you either fail or you succeed. If you fail, you stop where you tried to enter from and trigger reactions. If you succeed, you move into the enemy's space and each square is counted as difficult terrain. If you don't have sufficient movement to exit the enemy's space, then you effectively never entered, go back to the entry point, and trigger reactions as if you had moved.
For most practical uses (by non-Swashbucklers), you will probably exit from another direction as you are using the action to get from where you are to where you want to go and there is an enemy you can't get around.
For a Swashbuckler, you can do this simply to gain Panache. A Swashbuckler might very well use this action to move into an enemy's space and then reverse direction and literally return to the square they started from, and will gain Panache. This is no different than counting coup, a traditional way of showing bravery in the face of an enemy... which is really what Panache is about. So yes, a Swashbuckler might show great bravado by tumbling into an enemy's space to show he can, then tumbling back out to where he started. In the Swashbuckler's case, he's not looking to move anywhere... he looking to show derring-do!
And I don't see any reason why Vexing Tumble should be mentioned. It's a class feat and VERY different from Tumble Through.
Vexing Tumble allows you to move WIHTOUT TRIGGERING REACTIONS. This is what makes Vexing Tumble very nice.
Tumble Through STILL TRIGGERS REACTIONS - everyone seems to be thinking FIRST EDITION where you tumble to avoid AOOs. Read Tumble Through carefully... no where does it say that it negates reactions or AOOs. Tumble Through is a "MOVE" action which triggers AOOs. Personally, I didn't realize this until your discussion forced me to read the action very, very carefully and think about it. All the Tumble Through action allows you to do is enter an enemy's space, which is something you normally cannot do under the movement rules. This also means my idea of using it so a Sprite can enter an enemy's square without triggering an AOO won't work - in fact Sprites don't need to Tumble Through as the "Special Rules" for Tiny creatures allows them to move into an enemy's space.
Your discussions have been an eye-opener for ME as I now understand that we've been playing Tumble Through wrong in my group, and I suspect many others have as well. We played 1st Edition for many years, and are still playing at this time (finishing up our last 1st Edition AP). This is a classic example of 1st Edition Players carrying forward their 1st Edition preconceptions to the 2nd Edition rules... and I admit to being guilty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, despite the similar names, Tumble Through and Vexing Tumble are unrelated and do different things, and since they are each their own action, they can’t be combined. You can’t vexing tumble through a creature. Only its threatened squares.
I don’t see an issue with a swashbuckler tumbling into a creature’s square and then back out, even to the same place they started from. There’s little difference between that and a cavalier (or whatever the move 10 feet to gain bonus damage archetype is) moving in a circle to end up where they started just to trigger their bonus damage.
Tumble Through does fail, though, if you don’t have enough movement to leave the creature’s square, so I’m not sure where that leaves tiny creatures and tumble through, since they don’t even technically need to do it to enter a medium creature’s square in the first place.
|
|
Thank you for the contributions. I have been fully aware that Tumble through does provoke attacks of opportunity - but maybe we are all guilty looking at it in regard to 1e. I'm guilty as well, but maybe in a different way then you thought.
You can attempt an Acrobatics check to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity when moving through a threatened square.
You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy.
Size and reach
Size Space
Tiny Less than 5 feet
Small 5 feet
Medium 5 feet
Large 10 feet
Huge 15 feet
Gargantuan 20 feet or more
This would mean minimum movement costs of Tumble Through the become (assuming you start next to the creature)
Tiny: 10 feet (through the creature and stay in the square)
Small: 15 feet (through the square and 5 foot stride into an empty square)
Large: 25 feet (through the space of 10 foot and 5 foot stride into an empty square)
Huge: 35 feet (through the space of 15 foot and 5 foot stride into an empty square)
Gargantuan: 45 feet (through the space of 20 foot and 5 foot stride into an empty square)
I can't see anything by RAW that would allow less movement to be employed. That still leaves the 'through' part. But tumble through the space of the creature is different to tumble into a square and out for anything larger medium.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tumbling strike mentions ending up specifically on the other side of the creature you tumbled through.
You move through the enemy's space to an unoccupied space on the other side of the enemy from your starting position.
So I'd expect the same wording on tumble through if you had to go straight through the enemy
|
|
Tumbling strike mentions ending up specifically on the other side of the creature you tumbled through.
You move through the enemy's space to an unoccupied space on the other side of the enemy from your starting position.So I'd expect the same wording on tumble through if you had to go straight through the enemy
Thanks - that is very useful.
My opinion: it mentioned that you have to end in an unoccupied space on the other side of the enemy because you are limited to that move and not allowed to stride further (as tumble through allows).
So tumble through a medium creature to the opposite side 10 feet + 5 feet - stride back around it (15 feet) and end back where you started - 30 feet total movement - is 100% RAW provided there is nothing blocking you in.
So in my view this is more reconfirmation of what 'through' means in my view - but your interpretation might be different to mine. It also is about 'flanking with yourself' and it would rule out the example of Ascalaphus where a single creature blocks an x-junction corridor.
But certainly very useful as another tumble action.
Edit: There is also Tumble Behind (Rogue)Feat 1
Rogue
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 134
You tumble under and behind your foe to catch them off guard. When you successfully Tumble Through, the foe whose space you passed through is flat-footed against the next attack you make before the end of your turn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are the two examples that triggered it:
1) swashbuckler fights gargantuan enemy. He has not enough movement to tumble through to the other side 20*2+5 = 45 but he can easily tumble across a corner of the creature
I wouldn't hesitate to allow this. In from one space, out through another, that satisfies "through" to me.
2) swashbuckler fights 2 large creatures (15 foot reach) in a 10 foot wide corridor. He can’t tumble through a corner as that ends in a wall, he can’t tumble through to the other side as that space is occupied another enemy. The space next to him is occupied by an ally. So he tumbles in place using the tumble through action.
During the adventure I allowed both - but I have second thoughts on 2)
Here I would hesitate, but the longer I consider it, the more I'm inclined to allow it.
When the CRB was being written we didn't have a swashbuckler yet. Tumbling just to be tumbling was limited to some niche feats. So when tumbling was written "through" was the only possible reason to tumble. Now we have another reason, to gain panache. I think if the CRB were being written with the swashbuckler in hindsight, tumble might be written either more permissively or more obviously strict. Probably more permissively.
For a swashbuckler, "there and back again" tumbling doesn't really give any big power boost, it costs the same, has the same risks, and often just wastes a chance to set up better positioning. But very occasionally it helps in too-small dungeons.
And I don't really like cramped dungeons that have "grid artifacts" like the classic diagonal corridor / polearm reach madness of 1E. If a more relaxed rule interpretation is needed to make the geometry work sensibly, then I can live with that.
I also want the ebb and flow of gaining panache and doing finishers to be generally available. It's already got difficulty baked in because you need to pass a check. Geometry artifacts are IMO not intended to make it worse.
You could counter that though by saying that this encourages swashbucklers to move to more open areas, give enemies some room. But I think that's looking too far for intentions. I think it's just old phrasing.