| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The text is 'When you leap, step, or tumble through'
IMO it has to be second because if it's before you move then you haven't moved and therefore haven't fulfilled the condition.
|
The text is 'When you leap, step, or tumble through'
IMO it has to be second because if it's before you move then you haven't moved and therefore haven't fulfilled the condition.
Is it possible in the system for things to happen simultaneously? Also, not saying you're wrong but an example of an exception would be how reactions can retroactively occur before a triggering action is completed in the case of critically hitting with reactive strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe. The liturgist ability isn't described as a reaction or trigger so I'm trying to just parse it as close to what I'm seeing as I can, there's probably room for variance there though.
|
|
Maybe. The liturgist ability isn't described as a reaction or trigger so I'm trying to just parse it as close to what I'm seeing as I can, there's probably room for variance there though.
Yeah, I definitely understand. As much as I love this class, there are a lot of little nit picks I have with the wording of parts.
Just an update Michael Sayre was on discord and said
"Or, and hear me out here, maybe those are two completely different things.
Quick Spring's problem was that it was functionally two Strides for the cost of one as a single feat.
Animist had tons of playtest feedback pointing out how quick and easy it was to get Leaps to the same functionality as Strides so the 9th-level liturgist ability is intentionally "a move action with style while you Sustain". (And as others have noted, it's not literally all Strides, because it won't work with e.g. quicken effects that let you Stride.)"
So it's raw and Rai were in fact in alignment
How did you interpret what Sayre wrote as meaning Tumble Through works without having to Tumble Through? That statement from Sayre says nothing about Tumble Through.
That is not a ruling. It's a personal statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tumble Through does this
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.
It is not a compartmentalized action. It is meant for a specific purpose. The "can try" is only for Tumble Through if you actually use it. Otherwise, it's just a stride and doesn't apply.
My goodness. I absolutely despise when they make rules of this kind and players try to turn a "Tumble Through" action into a "Stride" with a different name.
Why can't the designers write things clear and if they intended Stride, just write when you Stride you sustain the spell.
No way this works at my tables. It certainly isn't RAW or RAI. RAW is the entire explanation including what it is used for.
Another ability to create table arguments. How I love those.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did you interpret what Sayre wrote as meaning Tumble Through works without having to Tumble Through? That statement from Sayre says nothing about Tumble Through.
That is not a ruling. It's a personal statement.
It's neither a ruling nor a personal statement; it's just how the rule works. Let's refer to the relevant bit of Sayre's comment:
Animist had tons of playtest feedback pointing out how quick and easy it was to get Leaps to the same functionality as Strides so the 9th-level liturgist ability is intentionally "a move action with style while you Sustain". (And as others have noted, it's not literally all Strides, because it won't work with e.g. quicken effects that let you Stride.)
Not only is Tumble Through intended to be a better Stride (minus the haste synergy), with no requirement to move through an enemy, its resulting synergy with the Liturgist was fully intentional as well. Thus, it is not a "compartmentalized action", and its "specific purpose" is a lot less specific than the purpose of, say, a Stride action.
Another ability to create table arguments. How I love those.
With all due respect, you're the one who resurrected this thread from the dead just to manufacture an argument that had already been long-resolved. Judging by your Animist thread, in which you've been similarly trying to house rule nerfs to the class at every opportunity to justify the premade conclusion that they're not a strong class, the otherwise-unanimous consensus is that Tumble Through lets you move through an enemy's space, but doesn't force you to do so, which is already pretty clear in the rules themselves. This isn't really an argument so much as a fake controversy fabricated and maintained by one single individual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As well as adding flair, I suspect that breaking the synergy with Haste was probably the main factor, as might be other abilities that have synergy with Stride. Paizo has kept a rigorous line keeping Haste from empowering any kind of spell use, so this maintains that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did you interpret what Sayre wrote as meaning Tumble Through works without having to Tumble Through? That statement from Sayre says nothing about Tumble Through.
That is not a ruling. It's a personal statement.
It's neither a ruling nor a personal statement; it's just how the rule works. Let's refer to the relevant bit of Sayre's comment:
Animist had tons of playtest feedback pointing out how quick and easy it was to get Leaps to the same functionality as Strides so the 9th-level liturgist ability is intentionally "a move action with style while you Sustain". (And as others have noted, it's not literally all Strides, because it won't work with e.g. quicken effects that let you Stride.)Not only is Tumble Through intended to be a better Stride (minus the haste synergy), with no requirement to move through an enemy, its resulting synergy with the Liturgist was fully intentional as well. Thus, it is not a "compartmentalized action", and its "specific purpose" is a lot less specific than the purpose of, say, a Stride action.
Another ability to create table arguments. How I love those.With all due respect, you're the one who resurrected this thread from the dead just to manufacture an argument that had already been long-resolved. Judging by your Animist thread, in which you've been similarly trying to house rule nerfs to the class at every opportunity to justify the premade conclusion that they're not a strong class, the otherwise-unanimous consensus is that Tumble Through lets you move through an enemy's space, but doesn't force you to do so, which is already pretty clear in the rules themselves. This isn't really an argument so much as a fake controversy fabricated and maintained by one single individual.
I brought this thread up because John R said a dev ruled on this. That statemen is not a ruling nor a clarification of how the rule works. The fact a bunch of people interpreted it that way is par for the course for the rules lawyer's attempt at cheesing their way into a favorable ruling.
Unless I see Paizo officially make clear that Stride and Tumble Through are the same thing and that somehow they meant you can Stride with the Liturgist and listing Tumble Through was some unintentional mistake by them to make an unclear ruled that was missed during revision, I will never allow it to work that way at my tables.
We do not like it when someone names something Tumble Through when they meant Stride. That kind of rule design is bad and creates table issues.
Yes, Tumble Through being a masked stride, but somehow better because you do not have to actually tumble through anything is... something. I don't think I would ever allow that, but whatever, my table isn't yours.
However, I wonder if anything else breaks with Liturgist:
"When you Leap, Step, or Tumble Through, you also Sustain an apparition spell or vessel spell."
Elf Step and Manoeuvring Spell from Sixth Pillar were mentioned, but on a closer look those just incorporate Steps as subordinate actions. Won't let you Sustain in other words.
Peafowl Stance however lets you Step as a free action before or after striking with a sword with the monk trait. Not a subordinate action, so that definitely counts. We can Strike, Step and Sustain.
Anything else to look out for?
I'm in this camp. Never gonna happen.
If the designers and Sayre had intended it to be a move action with style, they shouldn't even have bothered to write the three types of movement that sustain it.
This is what is known as bad rules design creating ambiguous rulings and problematic table arguments. Unclear, ambiguous, and turns Tumble Through into a stride action with the option to Tumble Through.
Nothing makes me dislike something more than game designers writing a rule poorly then making an off-hand comment that others take as a gospel statement about the rules.
I'm glad I don't have players who like to push this kind of cheese.
I brought this thread up because John R said a dev ruled on this. That statemen is not a ruling nor a clarification of how the rule works. The fact a bunch of people interpreted it that way is par for the course for the rules lawyer's attempt at cheesing their way into a favorable ruling.
The statement very clearly expounds on how Tumble Through was used for the Liturgist specifically because it was a "Stride+", and the fact that a Tumble Through can be used to do the same movement as a regular Stride is intentional. The rule itself does not need further clarification when it already explicitly says that you can try to move through the space of one enemy.
Unless I see Paizo officially make clear that Stride and Tumble Through are the same thing and that somehow they meant you can Stride with the Liturgist and listing Tumble Through was some unintentional mistake by them to make an unclear ruled that was missed during revision, I will never allow it to work that way at my tables.
Stride and Tumble Through are not the same thing; Sayre's post makes that clear too. Your argument here is also just really jumbled, and seems haphazardly constructed to justify this house-ruled nerf you've come up with.
We do not like it when someone names something Tumble Through when they meant Stride. That kind of rule design is bad and creates table issues.
But Sayre didn't mean Stride, he meant Tumble Through. I can definitely agree that the rules text around that Liturgist feature has a whole heap of problems and exploits, but being able to freely move around and Sustain your apparition and vessel spells is 100% intended.
This makes me wonder how many step actions there is in the game now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I brought this thread up because John R said a dev ruled on this.
siegfriedliner posted the developer's thoughts on the matter in this thread ... seven months ago.
Is there anything that says Tumble Through is legal in this case? I am curious because I brought this up to my DM and he missed the part where Tumble Through says you can try not that you must.
The fact that the text says you can, not that you must, should already make it unambiguous, but here's Michael Sayre's take on the Liturgist using Tumble Through:
Animist had tons of playtest feedback pointing out how quick and easy it was to get Leaps to the same functionality as Strides so the 9th-level liturgist ability is intentionally "a move action with style while you Sustain"
There's more to confirm this on top, but it's pretty clear that the Liturgist moving without restrictions and Sustaining spells along the way is 100% intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tumble through action is clear how it works and Michael response was clear that developers were aware of how the action works and built the ability accordingly.
Your free to do things at your table how you like but you are basically allowing a vibe check to overrule relatively clear mechanics.
It is cheesing a rule, pure and simple.
Tumble Through is not a replacement for a Stride. They are separate actions.
I consider it cheating. I wouldn't allow it.
A comment by a designer is not an official ruling. I don't know why you keep selling it as such.
I'm done with this discussion. I don't allow this type of rules lawyering in my games which I view as attempts at cheating. I don't care for them.
I hope Paizo cleans up the Tumble Through rule at some going as it is obviously being used to sell an animist ability as better than it is because Tumble Through is interpreted as a Stride. Just a bad ruling and a bad way to write a rule. I really, really despise this type of attempt by players to subvert a rule to make a class more powerful.
How often did this happen in PF1? Too often. Now it's being attempted in PF2, which has mostly clean rulings without this type of player exploitation.
Tumble Through is the same as a Stride...why even bother to write the Tumble Through skill action. I can just tell the DM I'm always Tumbling Through, never striding. It's all the same.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tumble Through is the same as a Stride...why even bother to write the Tumble Through skill action. I can just tell the DM I'm always Tumbling Through, never striding. It's all the same.
Because you can't use Tumble Through with haste and other abilities that tack on a stride with another action such as Sudden Charge.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really despise this type of attempt by players to subvert a rule to make a class more powerful.
Again, I and others (Teridax I'm sure of) have repeatedly told you in the other thread that we also believe this is overly strong and I choose not to play with the practice as a whole and am open to houserulings.... That doesn't change the fact that I know what words mean and that when the Rules As Written say it works this way and the class's designer and one of the former major designers explain the Rules As Intended (which by definition may or may not appear in official sources) match up with the Rules As Written, the only person in the wrong here is the person "despising" the majority of the players for simply acknowledging RAW and RAI and calling them "cheaters".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I and others (Teridax I'm sure of) have repeatedly told you in the other thread that we also believe this is overly strong and I choose not to play with the practice as a whole and am open to houserulings.... That doesn't change the fact that I know what words mean and that when the Rules As Written say it works this way and the class's designer and one of the former major designers explain the Rules As Intended (which by definition may or may not appear in official sources) match up with the Rules As Written, the only person in the wrong here is the person "despising" the majority of the players for simply acknowledging RAW and RAI and calling them "cheaters".
I can confirm this, yes. It is my personal opinion that the Animist as a class is overly strong and has a lot of elements that are prone to exploits. When someone at my table wants to play an Animist, I brief them on the class, explain how I believe they can be a detriment to other players' experience when optimized too hard or when built to beat other party members at their own specialty, and work with them to avoid those issues as much as possible. Online, when the topic of the Animist comes up, I criticize the class and try my best to point out why I think they're so far above the curve, using arguments from RAW.
As for the situation at hand, I'm reminded of a joke: there's a man driving his car down the highway, and on the radio he hears: "please be advised, there's a car driving down the wrong side of the road."
The man exclaims: "What do you mean, just one?! There's hundreds of them!"
When it comes to Liturgist sustain using Tumble Through without actually Tumbling Through anything, I'm with Deriven.
Yes, it's RAW, and it's also apparently RAI.
It is also cheesy and lacks common sense. If you do not actually Tumble Through anything, then it's a Stride. Stride cannot be used to sustain. To me, it's that simple. To me, people using it that way are trying to exploit the rules, and I do not find that fun as a player or GM. But that's me.
You are in no way wrong if you use RAW or RAI at your table for this, and he and I are not wrong for saying "Not at my table." Every table is different, and rules should be adjusted for what makes the game fun for that table.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are in no way wrong if you use RAW or RAI at your table for this, and he and I are not wrong for saying "Not at my table." Every table is different, and rules should be adjusted for what makes the game fun for that table.
That's the problem though. No one has even implied that he is personally required to run it that way at his table and plenty of others have stated they also choose to not run it that way but he still resorts to inflammatory language, "despising" people and calling them "cheaters" for simply being allowed to follow the RAW and RAI rulings when he likely won't ever be playing with these people. I'd hate to see his reaction when changing groups in 5e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are in no way wrong if you use RAW or RAI at your table for this, and he and I are not wrong for saying "Not at my table." Every table is different, and rules should be adjusted for what makes the game fun for that table.
I'd say there's already a difference here in that you're acknowledging that you're house ruling, whereas Deriven believes his house rule is RAW and that anyone who disagrees is "cheating". Your approach at least makes it clear that you're the one putting your foot down and changing the rules of the game based on a disagreement you have with a rules element, such that you and another player can both agree on what the RAW and RAI is. At the same time, you and that player would also get to agree on using your version that is neither RAW nor RAI, but still potentially more beneficial for your table. That's not a compromise that could be easily achieved by pretending a house rule is RAW or RAI, because doing so would obviously generate pushback from players who know what the rules actually entail, as has happened here.
FWIW, I can empathize with the desire to nerf the Animist and nip abuse cases in the bud, because the class has given me many a headache in play and many aspects of their design I think are highly prone to abuse. I personally don't believe the class needs some of the best action economy for a caster in the game on top of all their other benefits, and the Liturgist in particular ends up going even more off the rails when they get to take extra Step actions, something that can happen through their own class feats as well as feats like Elf Step. Although I don't limit how Tumble Through can be used at my table, I can see the benefit here in that it would force a Liturgist Animist to get up close and personal to leverage the most of their action compression, and Leap or Step if they don't want to move through enemies.
|
When someone at my table wants to play an Animist, I brief them on the class, explain how I believe they can be a detriment to other players' experience when optimized too hard or when built to beat other party members at their own specialty
That may well be a significant part of why our opinions on the Animist power level differ. In the high level game I automatically did exactly that (didn’t optimize too hard, deliberately stayed out of the other caster’s chosen specialty).
That may well be a significant part of why our opinions on the Animist power level differ. In the high level game I automatically did exactly that (didn’t optimize too hard, deliberately stayed out of the other caster’s chosen specialty).
Although this is slightly tangential to the topic of the Liturgist itself, what you're expressing is actually not all that dissimilar to the Oberoni fallacy: namely, you're arguing that the Animist isn't too strong or able to step on other classes' toes, because you're intentionally applying fixes to the class to prevent it from doing that. You could certainly argue "Yes, the Animist can tread on other classes' toes, but I deliberately avoid dipping into other casters' specialties, so that problem is easily addressed", or "Yes, the Animist is too strong, but that can be easily fixed by avoiding hyper-optimizing around certain factors," and both are logically consistent points that I'd also very much agree with, but saying "No, the Animist isn't too strong or able to eat the lunch of other classes because I've applied these fixes" is committing a fallacy. If the Animist didn't have these problems, you wouldn't need to apply these fixes in the first place.
Looking forward to this debate when the remastered Psychic gets a free sustain whenever it takes a concentrate action.
“But that means…!”
Yes, yes it would.
(If Sayre was still there I’d even give it a 10% chance of happening, between the animist and the rogue save boost he was responsible for. On the other hand we also have the mythic rule set, so we know mainline book high profile suck is still possible.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is also cheesy and lacks common sense. If you do not actually Tumble Through anything, then it's a Stride. Stride cannot be used to sustain. To me, it's that simple.
This strikes me as a weak justification when the reason you can't use Stride is specifically, per developer commentary, that you're supposed to Tumble instead because it covers the same use case.
You're right, you're not wrong for saying "not at your table" that's fine, but the logic here is a bit problematic when the thing you're arguing demonstrates cheese is part of the design choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking forward to this debate when the remastered Psychic gets a free sustain whenever it takes a concentrate action.
“But that means…!”
Yes, yes it would.
Perpetual Sustain. I spend the rest of eternity using Sustain actions. The rest of the characters never get to act again because my turn never finishes.
The fundamental problem that those who see it as cheesy seem to have with the interaction seems to be the name of the ability. Like, if it was called 'Fancy Stride' instead of 'Tumble Through', with otherwise the exact same rules text, it seems like those criticisms vanish (at least the ones that have been given). That's actually a pretty important lesson for ability design – the name alone can create strong associations and having a well-defined rules body isn't enough if it's not fully congruent with the mental image derived from the title.
Didn't we just have a thread on this? Yes, there is narrative flavor in the rules text. No, you can't just ignore the narrative flavor - it is there to guide you in properly interpreting the rule text.
|
|
If the Animist didn't have these problems, you wouldn't need to apply these fixes in the first place.
You may be right but you raise an interesting question. Should a class be balanced around mini maxing power gamers or around more normal character creation. The answer is probably both, wherever possible.
Note, I still think the Animist is less powerful than you do. But my perspective is definitely the person trying to build a fun character that contributes, not somebody trying to mini max the heck out of it.
And I still think some specific things people (not necessarily you) have claimed are too strong aren’t in actual play.
Edit: partly from the other discussion I just did a thought experiment. If I was not allowed to play a Liturgist would I still play an Animist? The answer is definitely yes. That does kinda imply that the Liturgist IS too powerful doesn’t it? I think I am changing my opinion, at least a little :-)
|
|
If I was not allowed to play a Liturgist would I still play an Animist? The answer is definitely yes. That does kinda imply that the Liturgist IS too powerful doesn’t it? I think I am changing my opinion, at least a little :-)
I don't think it necessarily implies it's too powerful...well, unless YOU specifically play it for power-gaming. It may be the case that it is too powerful but I just like being able to change my build every day. Some days I like *bonk*ing, some days I like blasting, sometimes I wanna sneak around and sometimes I wanna turn into an animal. Animist provides all of that to me so I love the class but I'm not looking to overshadow any specialized class either.
The other beef that I have with Liturgist is that Circle of Spirits is far and away the best level 1 Class feat. Channeler's Stance comes in at a clear second place. The rest all are in a distant third or below in some subjective order.
Circle of Spirits: You get additional focus points - 1 focus point for each focus spell you have like everyone else does. Additionally, you can switch between focus spells for 1 action during combat rather than having to do it as a 10 minute activity only. Yes please, and thank you.
Channeler's Stance: Bonus damage on your damage and healing spells from your apparition list or focus spells. Yes please.
Apparition Sense: You get an imprecise sense for haunts, creatures with the Spirit trait, and Undead. As a bonus you get a handful of niche abilities that will probably never come up in game. Not terrible.
Spirit Familiar: You get a Familiar. One that can die if you use some of your mid level feats and abilities that disperse one of your Apparitions. And even if the ability itself only disperses the Apparition temporarily it still kills the familiar... which will then permanently disperse the Apparition. Probably better to get a familiar in some other way.
Relinquish Control: By severely limiting the actions you can take, you can proactively gain a +4 bonus to effects that influence your actions or give you the Controlled condition. As a downside, you permanently lock in one Apparition choice for the rest of the character's playtime. Hard pass.
Of those two top picks, Channeler's Stance is not given by any Animist Practice. So if you want both of those top tier level 1 class feats as soon as possible, you need to play Liturgist.
If I was not allowed to play a Liturgist would I still play an Animist? The answer is definitely yes. That does kinda imply that the Liturgist IS too powerful doesn’t it? I think I am changing my opinion, at least a little :-)I don't think it necessarily implies it's too powerful...well, unless YOU specifically play it for power-gaming. It may be the case that it is too powerful but I just like being able to change my build every day.
That is mixing up two different arguments.
The complaints about Liturgist are that Liturgist is too powerful compared to other Animist Practices. Don't confuse that for saying that Animist is too powerful compared to other classes.
The combination of getting the best level 1 class feat for free at level 1 , and having an S-tier sustain option that none of the other Practices can even get access to... Yeah. Liturgist is way too powerful in comparison to the other Practices.
There is also a similar and related, but different argument that a Liturgist Animist is so powerful that it does start to exceed the power of other classes. Because at that point they are able to do all of the things that those specialized classes do just as well as they can (by doing so without the penalties to their action economy that Animist normally takes), but then also have the flexibility to switch to a different role on a different day.
|
|
If I was not allowed to play a Liturgist would I still play an Animist? The answer is definitely yes. That does kinda imply that the Liturgist IS too powerful doesn’t it? I think I am changing my opinion, at least a little :-)I don't think it necessarily implies it's too powerful...well, unless YOU specifically play it for power-gaming. It may be the case that it is too powerful but I just like being able to change my build every day.That is mixing up two different arguments.
The complaints about Liturgist are that Liturgist is too powerful compared to other Animist Practices. Don't confuse that for saying that Animist is too powerful compared to other classes.
The combination of getting the best level 1 class feat for free at level 1 , and having an S-tier sustain option that none of the other Practices can even get access to... Yeah. Liturgist is way too powerful in comparison to the other Practices.
There is also a similar and related, but different argument that a Liturgist Animist is so powerful that it does start to exceed the power of other classes. Because at that point they are able to do all of the things that those specialized classes do just as well as they can (by doing so without the penalties to their action economy that Animist normally takes), but then also have the flexibility to switch to a different role on a different day.
Sorry, I didn't specify that I don't feel that a non-liturgist animist is too powerful. Some do. I'm definitely on the side of "litugist too strong as is".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have read the quotes from Sayre, and while i see that "stylish movement" sustains, i can't follow the argumentation that tumble through does not actually need any tumbling through, as there was nothing said about that.
In any case, i think leaping, stepping and tumbling are plenty strong to sustain as an ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'all might be missing this part further down.
This might add context
Another user said:
"Honestly it’s really good to know that the tumble in that is intended to be able to be used as just a stride since there’s been a lot of debate about that. Thank you for the clarification!"
To which he responded
"I mean, if you're not backflipping as you go you're literally doing it wrong, but we were very cognizant of how Tumble Through works."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess nobody here watched Galaxy Quest, or you would all understand how important it is to tumble just whenever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said which seemed to go unnoticed on the other thread.
My question is not what is intended for Animist but why does the Tumble Through action have the weird wording of.
Tumble Through [one-action]
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.
- You can try to move through the space of one enemy. If this is not intended then why is it written in the Tumble Through Action then? Can try is not the same wording as You must, or something similar whicvh would enforce the action.
The fundamental problem that those who see it as cheesy seem to have with the interaction seems to be the name of the ability. Like, if it was called 'Fancy Stride' instead of 'Tumble Through', with otherwise the exact same rules text, it seems like those criticisms vanish (at least the ones that have been given). That's actually a pretty important lesson for ability design – the name alone can create strong associations and having a well-defined rules body isn't enough if it's not fully congruent with the mental image derived from the title.Didn't we just have a thread on this? Yes, there is narrative flavor in the rules text. No, you can't just ignore the narrative flavor - it is there to guide you in properly interpreting the rule text.
Yep, which is why we know that you must use a fist attack with Elemental Fist and a kick attack with Flying Kick... Or we can agree that sometimes flavor text and evocative names are just that; text JUST there to make it more interesting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said which seemed to go unnoticed on the other thread.
My question is not what is intended for Animist but why does the Tumble Through action have the weird wording of.
Tumble Through [one-action]
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.- You can try to move through the space of one enemy. If this is not intended then why is it written in the Tumble Through Action then? Can try is not the same wording as You must, or something similar whicvh would enforce the action.
There are two ways of interpreting that phrase of "you can try to move through the space of one enemy."
One is that you have the option of making the attempt if you feel the desire, but it is not necessary. You can choose to use the action anyway even if you don't try to move through the space of an enemy. "you can try to move through" but you don't have to try.
The other is that a mandatory part of the action involves moving through the space of an enemy and you must make a check to see if you succeed or fail at it. "you can try to move through" but you might fail.
I put this in the wrong place a moment ago!
This is an interesting thread so far but in reading tumble through I did have a question.
When a player wants to do something like backflip across a room and not move through an enemy space is that even the tumble through action?
Is this any action at all or is it something you have to just adjudicate?
I mean a 0 dex PC not trained in acrobatics couldn't just backflip across the room as well as a trained dex invested PC becasue tumble through doesnt explicitly call for a roll when there is no enemy?
|
|
When a player wants to do something like backflip across a room and not move through an enemy space is that even the tumble through action?
Is this any action at all or is it something you have to just adjudicate?
I mean a 0 dex PC not trained in acrobatics couldn't just backflip across the room as well as a trained dex invested PC becasue tumble through doesnt explicitly call for a roll when there is no enemy?
On one hand, if it does not have any mechanical impact and is purely flavor, you don't need to roll for it. There is no +1 gained.
If you want to do it with a dex 0 character untrained in acrobatics, my first question would be "why?" and i think i would ask for a DC 15 acrobatics and have them land prone on a failure, with 1d6 on a crit fail, just because it seems to me that they would like that.
In any case, i would not call this "tumble through"