Tumble Through:
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.
Googling definition of "can":
verb
modal verb: can; modal verb: could1.
be able to.
"they can run fast"2.
be permitted to.
"you can use the phone if you want to"Reinterpreted Tumble Through using 2 direct definitions of "can":
1. You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you [are] able to 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.
2. You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you [are] permitted to 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.
Buddy, yon can do your word dance as much as you want. The fact you need this much explanation to cheese this ability shows you know this isn't how it should work.
Tumble Through means what it is as in if you use it, you have to Tumble Through per its intended use.
I won't play it this way. It's cheating in my book.
If this is how PFS runs it and Paizo really has interpreted it, then they should issue a clear ruling with errata or a better written rule that Tumble Through and Stride are the same thing and that you can Stride to make the level 9 liturgist ability work.
I don't and won't ever run it this way. I really have no idea if PFS allows Tumble Through to be used in this goofy manner. I'm glad I don't have players who enjoy these types of cheesy rulings.
I'll view the animist capabilities with Tumble Through actually requiring a player to Tumble Through as I believe it was intended both RAW and RAI.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact you need this much explanation to cheese this ability shows you know this isn't how it should work.
The explanation was for you. I already had a clear understanding of the difference between "can" and "must" or that the omission of the word "can" in the first place would have implied necessity of the movement through an enemy space....so sounds like the word was placed there intentionally...implying intent.
|
No, just keep on selling that a comment by a designer that wasn't making an official ruling for everyone to follow is RAW and RAI.
But keep in mind in all future conversations about the Animist that you're playing it differently from everybody else. You are clearly the outlier, no matter how much you think you're obviously right
I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything. I'm pointing out that is the way it is going to be interpreted by lots of tables. 100 % of the 3 PFS tables I've played a L9+ Liturgist at, for example.
It's worth noting that Michael Sayre was the developer of the Animist, rather than some random Paizo dev. So it's at least the designer's intention to allow alternate movement types while sustaining. I can understand disagreeing with the way they went about it, but that's at least the goal behind it.
Anyway, I won't press on the topic anymore. I certainly thought this was a cheesy and unintended interpretation when the class came out. I'm happy with the clarification of intention, but if you're somebody only swayed by official errata, that's your call.
I'm sort of confused why Deriven wants to nerf this ability so badly. Not that long ago he was arguing the class was crap and not worth the effort.
It feels weird to pivot from that to trying to houserule it weaker in the next moment.
If this is how PFS runs it and Paizo really has interpreted it, then they should issue a clear ruling with errata or a better written rule that Tumble Through and Stride are the same thing and that you can Stride to make the level 9 liturgist ability work.
They’re not the same thing.
- You cannot tumble through with a haste action- You cannot sudden charge making two tumble throughs.
- You cannot tumble through in a warp step
There are lots of feats and spells that require the specific use of a stride. Forcing the animist to tumble through or leap is already a way of holding his power in check so that it doesn’t combo with haste.
But as I said before, you do you. Your table, your rules. The DM always has the final say anyway. Just don’t pretend it’s RAW.
Or, you know, if that bothers you that much, take quick jump, powerful leap and assurance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of confused why Deriven wants to nerf this ability so badly. Not that long ago he was arguing the class was crap and not worth the effort.
It feels weird to pivot from that to trying to houserule it weaker in the next moment.
I suspect it's not a pivot; one feeds into the other. This is a thread about arguing that the Animist is crap, and then finding every excuse to nerf the class so that they can still argued to be crap.
What's disappointing is that just one or the other could have made perhaps for an interesting discussion: a lot of people have argued that the Animist is strong, myself included, so it'd be nice to know what the class's weaknesses are, if any. The Animist has a lot of elements that are prone to exploits, so it'd similarly be nice to know what house rules or other remedial measure people have taken to curve the excesses of the class's power. However, insisting on house ruling, even outright removing basic game mechanics just to be able to keep making the argument that the Animist is a weak class is just about the most bad-faith way possible of engaging with the subject matter. Just watching the chain reaction from that Druid thread to making this thread, to angrily resurrecting the Liturgist thread, to going to the errata thread and asking for Tumble Through to be deleted from the game, has been entertaining for all the wrong reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end I am figuring out why Animist is so good by this thread. It is amazing and can be so many things at once which is kinda crazy if you ask me. One of the problems in the Ligurist Practice is the best hands down because of what they get at level 9. Sustaining a spell is very good bia moving or stewpping but like, Elf Step is a thing too.
|
|
Ignoring liturgist, I think the animist is balanced. It's not the best in anything but it's at least good at most things. However, that's my experience but my current animist isn't optimized outside of taking the druid archetype. Otherwise, he's a shaman with a large investment in strength and fairly low dex and con and he doesn't even wear heavy armor (at least not yet...haven't decided if it'll be a thing). I'd have to see an optimized one in play to be convinced the class is broken even without the advantages of the liturgist. If it did have to be weakened, I don't think removing anything from the class would be wise. I think ADDING a nerf to the class, something like apparition anathemas as I had previously mentioned, would reign in its power without gutting its gimmick and would add a ton of RP potential. I think apparition anathemas would add a ton of more fun to the class really.
My personal take on this is that the Animist's subclasses should have been their apparitions. Practices in the playtest were tacked-on just because the class needed some degree of permanent character choice, and that ballooned all the way through to the release version into the Liturgist in particular. In general, I feel a lot of the Animist's power is hidden in layers upon layers of obfuscation and vacuous complexity -- and, what's worse, I feel this was done deliberately. The Animist we have now has a lot of problems that I thought were left behind in PF1e: because the class is so inaccessible, few want to touch it despite their rich themes and RP potential, but those who do pick up the class and know which exploits to lean on can turn the Animist into an absolute terror. Even without a practice at all, the Animist I think can pivot way too easily into another party member's niche, so I'd still need to caution my players around that, but as a result some players have also reported the class as feeling profoundly unsatisfying, because none of their build decisions are made to stick and there's fundamentally no build diversity to a class that can do everything on the same build. For all my issues around the class's balance, I also would very much want the Animist to feel more accessible, better to play, and more rewarding when you actually do commit to something.
While I haven't applied any serious homebrew to the class at my table yet, I'd probably want something along the following:
On a 3-slot Wisdom prepared divine caster with medium armor proficiency (i.e. Cloistered Cleric chassis with better armor), I think this would make for a very strong base chassis already, one that might play a lot smoother in many ways than the current Animist even if they'd be weaker than the current class, as they'd no longer be able to completely rebuild themselves from one day to the next. They wouldn't be as versatile as they are now, but they'd still be incredibly versatile, while having the best of both prepared and spontaneous casting and thus a ton of spellcasting flexibility. If apparitions end up being too weak as a result, there's room to improve them too, such as by giving the battle form spells monstrosity form without a feat requirement, or having embodiment of battle let you make a Strike each time you Sustain the spell.
While the class is very strong, I think fixed apparitions are a bit of a no sale. The whole draw of the class is the apparitions mechanic. Without it I don't really see what it offers.
While the class is very strong, I think fixed apparitions are a bit of a no sale. The whole draw of the class is the apparitions mechanic. Without it I don't really see what it offers.
This is fair. I personally think the main class's draw is the interaction you have with your apparitions -- the Cleric may get a few extra spells to prepare, but the Animist gets a vast array of non-divine spells to choose from and cast much more freely. Apparitions give you Lore skills that let you shine in roleplay when certain topics come up, and above all, their vessel spells are tailored towards a specific niche, letting you become a gish, a blaster, a healer, and so on at the drop of a hat. The way I see it, the Animist in this respect is to spellcasters what the Thaumaturge is to martial classes: you get to mix and match small amounts of other classes' niches; not enough to overpower them (ideally), but enough to have a class defined by versatility and the unique ability to use those strengths together in good amounts. I'd go as far as to say that being able to swap out apparitions each day devalues this quite significantly by making key build decisions meaningless in the long run, while making the gameplay and RP engagement around individual apparitions quite superficial.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I need a class that enables my indecisiveness. I'd still prefer my suggestion of extra complexity on top of an already complex class for nerfs over something simpler and static for balance....but that's definitely a "me" problem. If they, for whatever reason, overhaul the class like the oracle in Teridax's direction, I'll stick to the legacy version kicking and screaming. Lol.
Narratively, the class is DOA if the apparitions are fixed. An animist needs to be able to connect with the spirit world around them. That was a part of the earliest conversations about the class. It is a divine class not fixated on worship as much as entreating with the powerful divine forces in the world around the animist. It’s fine that there is an option for focusing on one primarily, but taking way the option for coming to a river and reaching out to the spirit of that river, forging a bond with it for as long as it is going to be a presence in your character’s life is very central to the class fantasy enabled.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another idea I had that I suggested during playtest was having the subclass dictate different allowances in the number of accessible apparitions, limit of attunable apparitions, primary apparitions and ease of swapping primaries and/or attuned apparitions. It'd be way more complex but allow for possibly the most diverse class.
For example:
Practice 1 - access to 10 apparitions, can attune to 2 max, stuck with 1 primary each day and can't swap primary
Practice 2 - access to 6 apparitions, can attune to 3 max, 1 primary, able to swap primary during refocus
Practice 3 - access to 4 apparitions, can attune to all 4, attuned apparitions are always primary
I'm sure there could be 1 or 2 other variations but yeah...I thought it was a cool idea but probably broken on what's acceptable for complexity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does raise an interesting problem: if an Animist is meant to be able to bond with different apparitions as they travel through the world, that's valid, but then does every bond need to be temporary? How much power can be allowed to be mutable on a class from one day to the next before the individual character starts to lack a distinct, consistent identity? Because as it stands, the Animist's current mutability does carry problems, as so much of them can change from one day to the next that characters really do end up having no distinct identity. I've also found it difficult for them to have any meaningful bonds with apparitions, because those bonds tend to be short-lived and utilitarian, rather than long-lasting and able to carry through from one place to the next. This doesn't have to mean that all apparitions have to be fixed, then, but it does mean that the Animist in my opinion needs some degree of permanent choices.
So, with the above in mind, how about this in addition to the above bulletpoint list:
So with this, you'd have a degree of permanence still, and would have at least one apparition that would follow you throughout your character's journey, but you'd also have the option to swap out portions of your character and bond to more local apparitions. Would this be more reasonable?
What spells does Channeler's Stance actually break? Is there some hidden spells I am not seeing at my glances of Animist or is it just the few spells it works on it makes them really good or is it just Earth's bile?
What spells does Channeler's Stance actually break? Is there some hidden spells I am not seeing at my glances of Animist or is it just the few spells it works on it makes them really good or is it just Earth's bile?
Earth's bile is definitely one of them, as well as caustic blast and acid grip, though to a lesser extent there's also invoke spirits, which despite not dealing persistent damage still deals void damage each time you Sustain it. It's not a huge number of spells, but many of them are available early enough that it can easily become a problem if you stack even a couple of those persistent damage types. You could simply house rule that the bonus only triggers the first time the spell deals damage, though, which is what I'd recommend, and that would avoid those kinds of exploits altogether.
|
|
I think ADDING a nerf to the class, something like apparition anathemas as I had previously mentioned, would reign in its power without gutting its gimmick and would add a ton of RP potential. I think apparition anathemas would add a ton of more fun to the class really.No!!! No, it would not. Restricting roleplay options does not make things more fun, it just kills ideas. Also, please leave the Animist alone, that is quite literally the one class that I love in this game. It’s perfect. Whoever designed it should be in charge of more classes. But if not, let’s at least keep that one class untouched. I want my one Animist Peach Leshy to remain as it is.
Are you being sarcastic because you have completely misunderstood my point? I generally feel the same way but I also believe adding anathema to apparitions would ADD to RPing, not detract.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another idea I had that I suggested during playtest was having the subclass dictate different allowances in the number of accessible apparitions, limit of attunable apparitions, primary apparitions and ease of swapping primaries and/or attuned apparitions. It'd be way more complex but allow for possibly the most diverse class.
For example:
Practice 1 - access to 10 apparitions, can attune to 2 max, stuck with 1 primary each day and can't swap primary
Practice 2 - access to 6 apparitions, can attune to 3 max, 1 primary, able to swap primary during refocus
Practice 3 - access to 4 apparitions, can attune to all 4, attuned apparitions are always primary
I'm sure there could be 1 or 2 other variations but yeah...I thought it was a cool idea but probably broken on what's acceptable for complexity.
Also, picking up on this, but a model like the one proposed above could be a great way of letting players choose right from the start how much permanence versus how much flexibility they want on their Animist. I guess all roads lead back to the Kineticist, but a Single/Dual Gate-style choice where you can choose your apparitions to be all permanent, all daily, or a mix of the two, each with their own tradeoffs, could satisfy all parties involves, especially if this gets followed up with Gate's Threshold-style features that let you take on more apparitions or benefits from them. I do think this would probably work better on a spontaneous Animist than a prepared one, as they'd be guaranteed to have permanent character choices then, but then that'd allow them much more flexibility via apparitions.
Like Theridax said, the wording is pretty clear and lacks the part that sorcerous potency has ("This applies only to the initial damage or healing the spell deals when cast"). So maybe it's a mistake, maybe it's not, but fact is it's currently RAW.
However, we always played it like sorcerous potency, so no double dipping through the stance. It's a houseroule, but one I suspect is widely applied and that most people are ok with. Or, at least, I'm ok with it since I'm mostly the one playing animist so far in our group ^^
I'm curious as to how DMs in PFS play it.
|
|
Is this reading with the double dipped damage bonus from the stance through persistent damage actually common? I've played with animists at a number of tables and haven't seen it being played or even argued like that yet. Nor with the psychic using such spells while unleashed, for that matter. Am I the outlier?
Its not common, no. There is considerable disagreement as to whether or not it is RAW.
Now that this absurd ruling on Tumble Through has been brought to my attention, I have thought it over and decided how I will handle it.
So my game doesn’t become like that episode of The Office when Michael, Dwight, and Andy run around screaming “Parkour” while they needlessly attempt to Parkour everywhere looking like total fools, I’ve modified the Tumble Through action to require it be used for its intended purpose.
The offhand comment by Michael Sayre affects two classes major class features: the swashbuckler’s panache generation and the animist Liturgist practice.
This attempt to turn Tumble Through into the Stride action with no requirement that you execute the Tumble Through maneuver I find to be a poor ruling.
The swashbuckler in particular should not be able to gain panache by stating they Tumble Through without an enemy present and without an opposed roll.
If as Michael Sayre states they intended the Liturgist to be able to sustain a spell with a “move action with style’, they should have picked some other move action than Tumble Through which creates a ridiculous nonsense use of an acrobatic maneuver intended for the purpose of moving thorough an enemy’s square.
Sayre’s ruling makes Stride and Tumble Through equivalent with a slight advantage for Tumble Through. This idea it doesn’t work with haste being some kind limiter doesn’t support the ruling given the extra haste action can be used for attacking as well. The vast majority of haste extra actions I see are attacks.
The ruling resonates beyond Tumble Through to create an absurd world.
Taking this ruling to its absurd ends, there is no reason to use the Stride Maneuver for much. Everyone should just Tumble Through all the time with no opposing roll required.
The Swashbuckler would always have panache.
The animist can sustain spells indefinitely or at least for the 10 minute limit while never moving in range of an enemy to Tumble Through their square.
Just friendly swashbucklers and animists...everyone in the world...tumbling around with the only reason to stop tumbling being if you happen to need to use the stride action to move with a haste action. That’s it.
You would even argue Tumble Through works with Sudden Charge since it works with move actions, so if you take Sudden Charge on an animist with a barbarian or fighter archetype feat you can Sudden Charge claiming you’re Tumbling Through while doing so and sustain your spell using a Sudden Charge.
I’m sure there are all types of absurd options for using Tumble Through with any move action without requiring any opposed check that would actually require Tumble Through to be a meaningful term, but I won’t try to list them all as I don’t plan to participate in this ruling that turned Tumble Through from an acrobatic skill maneuver to a replacement for Stride.
You don’t even need to be trained in Acrobatics to Tumble Through. Anyone can do it...the bartender, the dung sweeper, the street urchin, the mayor, the local farmer, the farmer’s wife, all the townsfolk... all just tumbling around using the superior Tumble Through action in place of Stride creating a magical world of tumblers able to move around as easily as striding while also being able to Tumble Through an enemy’s space at need.
It’s a Tumbler’s world now, no use in ever Striding again.
The new saying in PF2 as coined by Michael Sayre, "Always be Tumbling Through.".
For those of you that want a less absurd rule and Tumble Through to mean something, here is my modification:
Tumble Through: [one-action]
Move
Requirement: You must try to move through an enemy’s space. You cannot use this ability if no enemy is present.
You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you attempt 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.
I thank you for brining this absurdity to my attention. I personally despise this type of rule absurdity. This allowed me to take care of it in advance.
|
|
The swashbuckler in particular should not be able to gain panache by stating they Tumble Through without an enemy present and without an opposed roll.
I hadn't thought about the Swashbuckler. You're absolutely right, it is beyond absurd that the swashbuckler gains panache for just wandering around the battlefield.
While some change is required for the swashbuckler your change is a reasonably significant nerf to the Liturgist. Even with various leap shenanigans Leap is way inferior to the RAW Tumble, especially when flying.
Is this reading with the double dipped damage bonus from the stance through persistent damage actually common? I've played with animists at a number of tables and haven't seen it being played or even argued like that yet. Nor with the psychic using such spells while unleashed, for that matter. Am I the outlier?
I only apply extra damage or an effect to persistent damage if the ability states it affects persistent damage.
Persistent damage is a condition. It is not caused by the player. It is caused by the condition and applied by an attack. It doesn't have a duration because it is a condition with the same means to get rid of it as any other persistent damage condition.
It doesn't do the damage on a sustain. It does the damage at the end of the affected targets turn regardless if the spell is even active any longer so long as the condition did not end using the flat check.
So no, you're not an outlier. My group had a discussion on a persistent damage a while back. It was at first confusing. I did consult the boards.
The boards pulling from various rules in the book proved the following:
1. Persistent damage is a condition.
2. It is not caused by the caster and the damage is not attributed to the caster. The damage is caused by the condition. It occurs whether the caster wants it to or not so long as the flat check to remove the condition has not been removed. The caster cannot dismiss it even if they dismiss the spell unless the text states they can.
3. It is not affected by any feat or ability unless the feat or ability clearly states it affects persistent damage.
That's how my group runs it after research and a discussion.
Given the rules are not 100 percent clear, I can see someone convincing a group to let the bonus apply to persistent damage.
Persistent damage isn't super great, so it won't have a huge impact very often. It might lead to occasional extra damage fun with Earth's Bile, especially considering it's AOE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hadn't thought about the Swashbuckler. You're absolutely right, it is beyond absurd that the swashbuckler gains panache for just wandering around the battlefield.
It's not absurd, because it doesn't happen.
Tumble through has the Bravado trait when used by a swashbuckler.
Bravado: Actions with this trait can grant panache, depending on the result of the check involved. If you succeed at the check on a bravado action, you gain panache ...
No check, no panache. No trying to pass through enemy, no check. No change is required for Swashbuckler.
Or, IMO, for Liturgist. Yes, the Liturgist can sustain by using Tumble Through without being anywhere near an enemy. What they CAN'T do is use something like hast to gain a stride move which then gives them a free sustain, because Tumble through and Stride aren't the same thing. It's not an ideal rule in terms of naming, but it works in terms of game balance.
The swashbuckler in particular should not be able to gain panache by stating they Tumble Through without an enemy present and without an opposed roll.
I hadn't thought about the Swashbuckler. You're absolutely right, it is beyond absurd that the swashbuckler gains panache for just wandering around the battlefield.
While some change is required for the swashbuckler your change is a reasonably significant nerf to the Liturgist. Even with various leap shenanigans Leap is way inferior to the RAW Tumble, especially when flying.
I don't think anything needs to be changed for Swashbuckler even for somebody running Tumble Through as not requiring a creature. Swashbuckler gives Tumble Through the bravado trait, which only does something based on a check result. If they don't try to move through an occupied space, they don't make the check, and can't get any panache from it.
The Swashbuckler would always have panache.The animist can sustain spells indefinitely or at least for the 10 minute limit while never moving in range of an enemy to Tumble Through their square.
- The swashbuckler needs a check to get panache. No check, no panache. He can tumble through as much as he wants, but he'll get panache only if he tries to actually go through an opponent.
- As for the animist, he can already leap which, at lvl 9 (when it matters) with assurance, is a guaranteed 25 feet (30 feet with strong jump). Tumble through is just more convenient as it doesn't need skill feats.
Basically, the ONLY time in the game where you gain anything by tumbling through instead of striding is when you're a liturgist - and that's specifically by design, because you're supposed to dance and prance around to keep your spells running.
So sure, your barbarian or wizard or ranger can tumble around, just like I as a player can do it in my dining room. You just don't gain anything by it except dusty clothes.
You would even argue Tumble Through works with Sudden Charge since it works with move actions, so if you take Sudden Charge on an animist with a barbarian or fighter archetype feat you can Sudden Charge claiming you’re Tumbling Through while doing so and sustain your spell using a Sudden Charge.
No you can't.
I don't know why Tumble Through annoys you so, but as I already said twice, you do you. Nobody is stopping you to houserule it in your games.
The Swashbuckler would always have panache.The animist can sustain spells indefinitely or at least for the 10 minute limit while never moving in range of an enemy to Tumble Through their square.
- The swashbuckler needs a check to get panache. No check, no panache. He can tumble through as much as he wants, but he'll get panache only if he tries to actually go through an opponent.
- As for the animist, he can already leap which, at lvl 9 (when it matters) with assurance, is a guaranteed 25 feet (30 feet with strong jump). Tumble through is just more convenient as it doesn't need skill feats.
Basically, the ONLY time in the game where you gain anything by tumbling through instead of striding is when you're a liturgist - and that's specifically by design, because you're supposed to dance and prance around to keep your spells running.
So sure, your barbarian or wizard or ranger can tumble around, just like I as a player can do it in my dining room. You just don't gain anything by it except dusty clothes.
You would even argue Tumble Through works with Sudden Charge since it works with move actions, so if you take Sudden Charge on an animist with a barbarian or fighter archetype feat you can Sudden Charge claiming you’re Tumbling Through while doing so and sustain your spell using a Sudden Charge.No you can't.
I don't know why Tumble Through annoys you so, but as I already said twice, you do you. Nobody is stopping you to houserule it in your games.
I just listed my house rule. Glad you love to make such hard rulings with other classes.
You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
As loosely as you are running Tumble Through, why not work with Sudden Charge? It's a different type of movement with Stride in the name. If Tumble Through and Stride is equivalent, why can't you use Sudden Charge?
Why does it annoy me so because as I pointed out above, Sayre's unofficial ruling...and it is unofficial...effectively makes Tumble Through and Stride equivalent with this small caveat concerning haste people keep bringing up like that's the reason.
It's a bad ruling. I'd love to see Paizo officially take this stance and see if the designers when they have this discussion about what Tumble Through is compared to Stride really consider it a Stride not really requiring you do the thing in the name...you know, actually Tumble Through.
With this loose ruling, Why would the bravado trait prevent it? You can make the check without going into the enemy's square? You just have to "try"...can't you try from far away? Just you know say you "try" sort of like you interpret "can" as optional requiring no enemy.
I love how you're having this hard ruling for the swashbuckler, but the animist just auto-succeeds at Tumble Through. Can't we say the swashbuckler succeeded since Tumble Through is automatically successful as the equivalent of a Stride action? Can't we do that? Why the hard ruling for the swashbuckler when the animist gets an automatic success a the skill action Tumble Through?
We'll have a nice loose ruling for the swashbuckler too. When you Tumble Through with no enemy using this Skill action, you're automatically considered to have had a success so you get panache.
I don't see why I have to punish the swashbuckler when I can say they get a success because this Tumble Through skill action doesn't require a roll to be successful at it...or an enemy...or even the Acrobatics skill...for the animist.
Makes perfect sense. About as much sense as the Tumble Through skill action being automatically successful for the animist and sustaining their spell.
You would even argue Tumble Through works with Sudden Charge since it works with move actions, so if you take Sudden Charge on an animist with a barbarian or fighter archetype feat you can Sudden Charge claiming you’re Tumbling Through while doing so and sustain your spell using a Sudden Charge.Haven't seen anyone argue it yet, I think I've even given it as a concrete counterexample of what differentiates the existing animist from a hypothetical animist that could Sustain with any Stride rather than only with Tumble Through. You can't just substitute out subordinate actions in an activity like that, the argument would be dead in the water I think.
I mean, it would still be very helpful to others if you listed any that you know of, even if it's ultimately of no concern at your table! The last one that people found (Quick Spring or whatever it's called) was fixed after it was pointed out.
I’m sure there are all types of absurd options for using Tumble Through with any move action without requiring any opposed check that would actually require Tumble Through to be a meaningful term, but I won’t try to list them all as I don’t plan to participate in this ruling that turned Tumble Through from an acrobatic skill maneuver to a replacement for Stride.
If you read the entire Tumble Through entry, you can use it any action that is used for move. Since a Stride is included in Sudden Charge and Tumble Through is the equivalent of a Stride requiring that you don't have to pass through an enemy's square, you can do it with Sudden Charge.
I would say given the loose ruling, you can use Tumble Through with any action that includes a Stride or move action of some kind that you can sell your DM on as roughly falling in line with the end clause:
You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
This ability is so loosely interpreted using Michael Sayre's ruling as "move action with style" that I don't see why you couldn't apply Tumble Through to nearly anything since it requires no roll and is a part of movement.
Tumble Through and Stride are the same. You have that clause at the end of it that opens up using Tumble Through in a wide variety of ways.
I hadn't thought about the Swashbuckler. You're absolutely right, it is beyond absurd that the swashbuckler gains panache for just wandering around the battlefield.It's not absurd, because it doesn't happen.
Tumble through has the Bravado trait when used by a swashbuckler.
Bravado: Actions with this trait can grant panache, depending on the result of the check involved. If you succeed at the check on a bravado action, you gain panache ...No check, no panache. No trying to pass through enemy, no check. No change is required for Swashbuckler.
Or, IMO, for Liturgist. Yes, the Liturgist can sustain by using Tumble Through without being anywhere near an enemy. What they CAN'T do is use something like hast to gain a stride move which then gives them a free sustain, because Tumble through and Stride aren't the same thing. It's not an ideal rule in terms of naming, but it works in terms of game balance.
I'm not super concerned about game balance. It's a bad ruling that turns Tumble Through into something it should not be.
You point out one difference between Stride and Tumble Through and somehow consider that enough to make them different, even though in this unofficial ruling they are the same except for haste. Even though haste has the option to allow you to attack with the haste action, not just Stride.
If Tumble Through is a skill action and is automatically successful, then why isn't it automatically successful for the swashbuckler? If all you need is a success, then making a key skill action automatically successful shouldn't be a problem.
I guess the swashbuckler requires a hard ruling while the animist just gets to use a skill action like Tumble Through with auto-success without even having an enemy around.
Gotta make sure the swashbuckler makes them rolls for Tumble Through while the animist gets their auto-success skill actions to make their class abilities work.
If I were following this ruling with Tumble Through being automatically successful for the animist, I certainly wouldn't punish the Swashbuckler by making them roll and enter an enemy's square. I'd just rule that like the animist the Tumble Through action is just an automatically successful skill action that works like Stride except when it comes to the quickened action for haste. Auto-success means the swash gets their panache with no roll. Works great for them.
Because why make a skill action like Tumble Through require a check to make work. It's really just Stride with style. Should have been called Tumble, not Tumble Through. Just nix that word off the end when it comes to the animist.
I've made my house rule to get rid of that Tumble Through absurdity. I hope Paizo cleans that ruling up. It is a bad ruling. Tumble Through should be a skill action used for the intended purpose of moving through an enemy's square, not a de facto Stride with a single caveat.
I'll be back to this thread when I play an animist. I have a few builds I will try. See how it works.
But no matter what I will never use that Tumble Through and Stride are equivalent but for one thing. Tumble Through is a meaningful skill action with a purpose in game. I plan to keep that the case.
I won't change it unless I see an official errata from Paizo. Not a discord response from a game designer making an unofficial comment.
When Paizo makes Tumble Through and Stride equivalent officially, then I guess I'll begrudgingly use it.
So would Earth's Bile hae Channeler's stance added only once to it's total damage or twice on both damage it deals? I know on how it is worded it adds damage to the Persistent damage but does both the Fire and Bludgeoning damage? Since I have always been confused by spells which deal multiple damage types and similar effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see a "ruling" made by Sayre, just a statement about "move actions with style".
I very much doubt he would say that tumble through can be used without tumbling through.
He did. Let's break down what he said:
Quick Spring's problem was that it was functionally two Strides for the cost of one as a single feat.
If you had to move through an opponent when Tumbling Through, the pre-nerf Quick Spring wouldn't have been a double Stride. That was a major issue with the ability, and whoever designed the feat likely mistakenly assumed you had to move through an enemy's space as well.
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 from this we get that:
So Sayre very much said that Tumbling Through can be used without moving through an enemy, which is already implied in the rules text. The ability to move freely and Sustain at the same time with a Liturgist is therefore by design. Massively overpowered and prone to abuse, but by design nonetheless.
So would Earth's Bile hae Channeler's stance added only once to it's total damage or twice on both damage it deals? I know on how it is worded it adds damage to the Persistent damage but does both the Fire and Bludgeoning damage? Since I have always been confused by spells which deal multiple damage types and similar effects.
It would only add the status bonus once to the initial instance of damage. Because the mixed damage types are still just one instance of damage, however ill-defined that may be in Pathfinder, you only apply the status bonus to it once. RAW, though, you'd also apply the status bonus to the persistent damage too, as that's a separate instance of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As loosely as you are running Tumble Through, why not work with Sudden Charge? It's a different type of movement with Stride in the name. If Tumble Through and Stride is equivalent, why can't you use Sudden Charge?
Because they're not equivalent, as people have consistently pointed out.
Sudden Charge specifically asks you to stride twice, which is a specific action. So you cannot step twice, you cannot jump twice... and you cannot tumble through twice.
With this loose ruling, Why would the bravado trait prevent it? You can make the check without going into the enemy's square? You just have to "try"...can't you try from far away? Just you know say you "try" sort of like you interpret "can" as optional requiring no enemy.
Bravado tells you that you have to succeed at a check. If there's no check, there's no bravado.
I love how you're having this hard ruling for the swashbuckler, but the animist just auto-succeeds at Tumble Through. Can't we say the swashbuckler succeeded since Tumble Through is automatically successful as the equivalent of a Stride action? Can't we do that? Why the hard ruling for the swashbuckler when the animist gets an automatic success a the skill action Tumble Through?
We'll have a nice loose ruling for the swashbuckler too. When you Tumble Through with no enemy using this Skill action, you're automatically considered to have had a success so you get panache.
I don't see why I have to punish the swashbuckler when I can say they get a success because this Tumble Through skill action doesn't require a roll to be successful at it...or an enemy...or even the Acrobatics skill...for the animist.
Makes perfect sense. About as much sense as the Tumble Through skill action being automatically successful for the animist and sustaining their spell.
Well, I'm merely reading the rules, you know. Sometimes Paizo makes it hard to see what the RAW is but that's not the case here.
- You can try to move through a space = you can try (tumble through)- You stride twice = you stride twice (sudden charge)
- You gain panache depending on the result of your check = you make a check, and you gain panache depending on the result (bravado)
I don't see what the big problem is but clearly, it's an issue for you so, as was pointed out many times you can substitute your own ruling at your table, and that's what you did so now we're fine and we can stop running in circles (or, you know, tumbling in circles).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say Sudden Charge is actually an excellent supporting example of how Tumble Through works RAW. Let's look at the rules text:
With a quick sprint, you dash up to your foe and swing. Stride twice. If you end your movement within melee reach of at least one enemy, you can make a melee Strike against that enemy. You can use Sudden Charge while Burrowing, Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have the corresponding movement type.
Emphasis added in bold. What the rules text says is the following:
So not only does that action make it very clear which parts are optional and which aren't, some parts of it can only be read as optional, confirming how "can" really is used in rules text to denote options rather than mandatory actions.
What benefits does a Medium get at level 9 when he can take 2 main spirits?
What can this potentially give?
|
|
What benefits does a Medium get at level 9 when he can take 2 main spirits?
What can this potentially give?
There's an in-depth comparison between medium and liturgist in this guide.