| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tumble Through:
Specifies that the player moves through a square occupied by an enemy who is unwilling.
It in fact does not say that. "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy." They CAN try to move through an enemy, not that they must. You may use the Tumble Through action to simply Stride and never attempt to move through anyone's space.
Question: Is Tumble Through necessary; can it be done simply to gain Panache when the square is not occupied by a creature who can demonstrate willingness or unwillingness for the other to move through it?
"A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slam Down:
You make an attack to knock a foe off balance, then follow up immediately with a sweep to topple them. Make a melee Strike. If it hits and deals damage, you can attempt an Athletics check to Trip the creature you hit. If you’re wielding a two-handed melee weapon, you can ignore Trip’s requirement that you have a hand free. Both attacks count toward your multiple attack penalty, but the penalty doesn’t increase until after you’ve made both of them.Question: Player with a reach weapon contends that the weapon is being used for the Slam Down, while the weapon lacks a Trip trait. I contend that the weapon is not being used for the Trip attempt; even the verbiage of Slam Down does not specify that the weapon is being used for the Trip attempt, unless the weapon itself has the Trip trait; nor does it state that this can be done with reach.
PC makes a melee Strike. Note that there is zero requirement about the kind of Strike, so yes a Reach weapon without Trip can be used.
Strike hits and deals damage: requirements fulfilled to go to the next step => PC can attempt an Athletics check to trip the creature they hit. Again nothing here says anything about the attack used, so Reach weapon without Trip is still OK.
The only thing about the attack in the feat is a benefit for the PC: if it's a two-handed weapon, you do not need a free hand to trip.
Note that the Trip trait already says that "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand." There would be zero reason to state it in the feat if it could be used only with a weapon with the Trip trait.
So, the player was right.
Strangely enough, the Trip action does not require the target to be in your reach BTW.
Ugh, you're right. There is no target text nor range limitation anywhere in that chain involving the Trip action. Nothing inherited from Athletic checks, etc.
Kinda nuts that has not been fixed in errata by now.
The text for the weapon trait [Trip] is the best RaI way to pretend that reach requirement is RaW.
You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand. This uses the weapon’s reach (if different from your own) and adds the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check. If you critically fail a check to Trip using the weapon, you can drop the weapon to take the effects of a failure instead of a critical failure.
This directly implies that the base Trip has a requirement of the target being within reach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It in fact does not say that. "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy." They CAN try to move through an enemy, not that they must. You may use the Tumble Through action to simply Stride and never attempt to move through anyone's space.Tumble Through:
Specifies that the player moves through a square occupied by an enemy who is unwilling.pg. 422, PC2:
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 it. You can’t end your turn in a square occupied by another creature, though you can end a move action in its square provided that you immediately use another move action to leave that square. If two creatures end up in the same square by accident, the GM determines which one is forced out of the square (or whether one falls prone).
And? Just because it says "If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through it" in no way REQUIRES there be an unwilling creature to use it. It's a section named "Moving Through a Creature’s Space" so why would you expect it to mention uses that do not involve "Moving Through a Creature’s Space"? The ACTUAL entry for Tumble Through gives the actual requirements for using it. That says "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy" and not you must try to move through the space of one enemy.
This has been confirmed by Dev posts: they described Tumble Through as a Stride with style and it can 100% be used as just a Stride and qualify for things that require Tumble Through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From dev Sayre:
"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.)"
That ability is "Dancing Invocation (9th) The movement of your body grants power to your magic. When you Leap, Step, or Tumble Through, you also Sustain an apparition spell or vessel spell." The discussion was about Tumble Through and the ability to get jumps high enough to equal or exceed Strides.
It's 100% intended that Tumble Through can be just a Stride with style. here are some threads about Tumble Through about this very thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The requirement does not state that the attack is made with the weapon. It simply says you can attempt to trip; if wielding a two-handed weapon, you needn't have a hand free for the trip attempt as per the feat requirement, NOT that the weapon used for the strike is used for the Trip attempt, giving it all the relative weapon traits of that striking weapon. The reason it would be stated in the feat is if the person is using slam down with a one-handed weapon would not need such a clarification; the two-handed weapon bypasses the prerequisite for trip to have a hand free, and it specifically does not grant the weapon the trip trait, implying the trip is made with limbs/body weight. Your reasoning appears flawed and incongruous with the wording of the feat; do you have a rules source/errata confirming this?
Serious question: How do you think this works in practice if it doesn't involve using the weapon?
Slam Down literally requires you to hit the enemy with a weapon in order to Trip them and lets you ignore Trip's requirement of a free hand. Crashing Slam (the upgraded version) doesn't even require a Trip attempt: you hit with the attack, you trip the enemy, full stop.
I can't think of any reasonable explanation for how this functions other than "you're using the weapon to trip them". Nothing in the rules says you're not using the weapon, as it goes out of its way to bypass every requirement that would normally require you to use a free hand or a Trip weapon. (The reason it doesn't just give the Trip trait is because that trait does additional things that this feat doesn't do.)
If you're looking for a specific official source that defines this: you won't find one. It doesn't exist. It doesn't really need to, because it's pretty clear what is going on here if you put the rules text down for a moment and imagine how the narrative of "I attack with a weapon, hit, and the enemy gets tripped" would work.
Like, the literal point of this feat is to let someone use a 2h weapon to Trip without needing to meet the normal requirements and be pretty good at it. You're arguing against the obvious and trying to claim that since the obvious isn't stated, that isn't what happens. That's not how the rules are written and if you try to enforce that kind of standard on everything, you're going to have a miserable time because the game fundamentally does not work that way.
Your player is right.
It in fact does not say that. "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy." They CAN try to move through an enemy, not that they must. You may use the Tumble Through action to simply Stride and never attempt to move through anyone's space.Tumble Through:
Specifies that the player moves through a square occupied by an enemy who is unwilling.pg. 422, PC2:
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 it. You can’t end your turn in a square occupied by another creature, though you can end a move action in its square provided that you immediately use another move action to leave that square. If two creatures end up in the same square by accident, the GM determines which one is forced out of the square (or whether one falls prone).And? Just because it says "If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through it" in no way REQUIRES there be an unwilling creature to use it. It's a section named "Moving Through a Creature’s Space" so why would you expect it to mention uses that do not involve "Moving Through a Creature’s Space"? The ACTUAL entry for Tumble Through gives the actual requirements for using it. That says "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy" and not you must try to move through the space of one enemy.
This has been confirmed by Dev posts: they described Tumble Through as a Stride with style and it can 100% be used as just a Stride and qualify for things that require Tumble Through.
If there's no Tumble check, there's no panache generated, making tumbling but not theough any unwilling creature not useful to the original question.
If there's no Tumble check, there's no panache generated, making tumbling but not theough any unwilling creature not useful to the original question.
In his statement of facts in the OP, he said "Tumble Through:
Specifies that the player moves through a square occupied by an enemy who is unwilling. "
I was pointing out that this is in fact not correct: full stop. I didn't want someone reading the thread to assume what he posted was correct as it's been clarified RAI and RAW.
I then answered his question about tumble through in the second part of my original post: ""A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement."
I then answered his question about tumble through in the second part of my original post: ""A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement."Although I think they can still make a check if they want and get panache. As is in line with normal gameplay for Swashbuckler: attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness. But there still should be a creature, even if incorporeal. If they want a check and panache 'just because' they need a custom action and a GM's agreement.
Yeah, like the 'swing on chandelier' example. For Tumble through though, if they can roll for an incorporeal creature then rolling for an 'Undetected' foe should also work by picking a square and rolling even if that square ends up not having a creature in it: After all, neither one offers any resistance to movement.
Strangely enough, the Trip action does not require the target to be in your reach BTW.Ugh, you're right. There is no target text nor range limitation anywhere in that chain involving the Trip action. Nothing inherited from Athletic checks, etc.
Kinda nuts that has not been fixed in errata by now.
I think it is kinda sane that they have not "fixed" it ion errata if the intent is in fact to sometimes allow use of the Trip rule in contexts outside of unarmed / trip weapon reach.
Which they have done, multiple times. Of the ones I know of, slam down is one example, ranged trip is another, and the playtest version of s certain Starfinder feat would be a third.
No. That's not logical. You terribly over-stretch. There's a difference between a real creature and implied one.
It's a creature with no physical form. It offers NO resistance and requires NO effort to move past. It offer as much resistance as an successfully disbelieved illusion.
Secondly, I don't see why it would work differently than attacking a square as described under Undetected. "If you suspect there's a creature around, you can pick a square and attempt an attack." If you disallow this then you make it so you can never make it past undetected creatures.
So,IMO, it's a quite logical conclusion and well within reason. I don't see a logical reason you can an attack roll to attack an empty space but can't roll to tumble through an empty space.
Third, you yourself said "attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness." How if an attempt to avoid an invisible creature not an attempt even if it proves ineffective by guessing wrong on the space? IMO, it makes more sense than getting to roll vs a creature that doesn't have a physical form: that's sounds more like a "terribly over-stretch" going into 'bag or rats' territory. At least the Undetected rules have you make a roll, unlike moving though the space of an incorporeal creature. :P
|
So I think we all agree that if you don't attempt a check at all, you don't get panache.
Normally you wouldn't have to tumble to get through the space of an incorporeal creature. So could you voluntarily tumble through and make the check, to score panache?
I think I'd allow that, with the usual risk that if you fail the Tumble check your movement stops. I'd say there's enough enemy there to "put on a show" and gain panache. Maybe instead of trying to dodge past a solid creature, you're trying to deftly sidestep past an insubstantial creature that will drain your life if you touch it. That seems like it's exciting enough that you can try to squeeze some panache out of it.
Saying "I don't know, but there might be an undetected enemy in that square so I'm going to dramatically tumble through there" goes a bit too far for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was ruled with... Performance? That a Swashbuckler can initiate a skill action against a creature normally immune to it due to traits (not the cooldown immunity for Demoralize) and still get panache if they passed the DC if the creature wasn't immune, so I'd apply the same for Tumble Through. If you fail the check... you still 'tumble through' the ghost and get the fail effect because that wasn't very bravado.
This is actually just built into the Bravado trait:
"If you succeed at the check on a bravado action, you gain panache, and if you fail (but not critically fail) the check, you gain panache but only until the end of your next turn. These effects can be applied even if the action had no other effect due to a failure or a creature's immunity."
The question of whether to allow a player to try to Tumble Through an Incorporeal creature's space (which isn't required to move through it) or an empty space (ditto) is up to GM discretion.
But since it's a player taking an action that's guaranteed to succeed and adding a chance to fail (and therefore end their movement early) in order to gain Panache, I'd allow it. It's basically the Swashbuckler doing cool acrobatics to pump themselves up. It's a bit harder to rule on the empty space (since Tumble Through requires an enemy's Reflex DC), but I'd probably just use Hard Level Based DC.
I think it was ruled with... Performance? That a Swashbuckler can initiate a skill action against a creature normally immune to it due to traits (not the cooldown immunity for Demoralize) and still get panache if they passed the DC if the creature wasn't immune, so I'd apply the same for Tumble Through. If you fail the check... you still 'tumble through' the ghost and get the fail effect because that wasn't very bravado.This is actually just built into the Bravado trait:
"If you succeed at the check on a bravado action, you gain panache, and if you fail (but not critically fail) the check, you gain panache but only until the end of your next turn. These effects can be applied even if the action had no other effect due to a failure or a creature's immunity."
The question of whether to allow a player to try to Tumble Through an Incorporeal creature's space (which isn't required to move through it) or an empty space (ditto) is up to GM discretion.
But since it's a player taking an action that's guaranteed to succeed and adding a chance to fail (and therefore end their movement early) in order to gain Panache, I'd allow it. It's basically the Swashbuckler doing cool acrobatics to pump themselves up. It's a bit harder to rule on the empty space (since Tumble Through requires an enemy's Reflex DC), but I'd probably just use Hard Level Based DC.
Hard level based DC would mean it is more likely you fail at moving through an empty area than a square occupied by a zombie. Which is obvious nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard level based DC would mean it is more likely you fail at moving through an empty area than a square occupied by a zombie. Which is obvious nonsense.I think it was ruled with... Performance? That a Swashbuckler can initiate a skill action against a creature normally immune to it due to traits (not the cooldown immunity for Demoralize) and still get panache if they passed the DC if the creature wasn't immune, so I'd apply the same for Tumble Through. If you fail the check... you still 'tumble through' the ghost and get the fail effect because that wasn't very bravado.This is actually just built into the Bravado trait:
"If you succeed at the check on a bravado action, you gain panache, and if you fail (but not critically fail) the check, you gain panache but only until the end of your next turn. These effects can be applied even if the action had no other effect due to a failure or a creature's immunity."
The question of whether to allow a player to try to Tumble Through an Incorporeal creature's space (which isn't required to move through it) or an empty space (ditto) is up to GM discretion.
But since it's a player taking an action that's guaranteed to succeed and adding a chance to fail (and therefore end their movement early) in order to gain Panache, I'd allow it. It's basically the Swashbuckler doing cool acrobatics to pump themselves up. It's a bit harder to rule on the empty space (since Tumble Through requires an enemy's Reflex DC), but I'd probably just use Hard Level Based DC.
And yet Standard DC by Level or lower means you're always better off trying to Tumble Through empty spaces than through any creature with Reflex saves higher than Low.
It's a gamist tradeoff to allow the Swashbuckler to try to do something they can't ever do RAW while not making said action the go-to. Hard DC by level places the number almost squarely between High and Moderate Reflex DC, which is about right for something they shouldn't even be able to do. The alternative is to just tell the Swashbuckler "No", which is equally valid.
If you want an in-game expalantion, it's much easier to look cool dunking on a slow zombie than doing pirouettes on empty air.
And you can't compare with attacking an empty space, there're completely different aim, mechanics and results. You can attack an empty space because it's written you can and there's even a rule how. Tumble through requires a creature for a check. If there isn't one I'm not sure even miming would work: miming walls works because they are very easy to imagine and stationary, but invisible creature could be everything. At the very least it's extremely hard difficulty to pull off :)
You totally can compare it. This is a world with invisible creatures, objects that are creatures [like animated objects], creatures that look like items [like mimics] ect. If you can dodge around an incorporeal creature that's in no way stopping you, it seems like an identical situation. And again, saying no means you can't try to move through actual invisible creatures or you telegraph which spaces they are in. You can Tumble Through an invisible enemies space when you know it's there so why would it be anymore difficult to try with an unknown one [the DC doesn't change vs an invisible one]? You still aren't getting precise senses.
You can attack an empty space because it's written you can and there's even a rule how.
It's a direct corollary: you have an ability that only targets a creature but it allowed an attempt vs space that may or may not have a creature in it compared with another ability that targets a creature. Tumble through a space that might have an invisible creatures space seems to be on more solid ground than ruling that you can tumble through an incorporeal creature.
Just do backflips.
It's essentially the same but my disagreement is that I can see actual cases where you will 100% want to tumble through spaces you think has a creature. That combined with your "attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness" makes me draw the conclusion that it should work in a world where it works vs a ghost: you do some fancy dodging and have the potential to lose movement [in a combat] if you fail the roll. If backflips gets the Bravado trait, how is it substantially different from Tumble Through when it's essentially the same mechanically?
And yet Standard DC by Level or lower means you're always better off trying to Tumble Through empty spaces than through any creature with Reflex saves higher than Low
No you’re not. You’re forgoing your rider effects. You could do exactly the same thing by demoralizing your pet mouse or some s#!$. Panache is tied to skill actions, which can be used for their useful effects. If you’re tumbling through an empty space panache is the only thing you’re getting, no demoralize or grapple or bon mot or whatever.
No you’re not. You’re forgoing your rider effects. You could do exactly the same thing by demoralizing your pet mouse or some s%%$. Panache is tied to skill actions, which can be used for their useful effects. If you’re tumbling through an empty space panache is the only thing you’re getting, no demoralize or grapple or bon mot or whatever.And yet Standard DC by Level or lower means you're always better off trying to Tumble Through empty spaces than through any creature with Reflex saves higher than Low
What rider effects? The main rider effect of Tumble Through is literally moving through someone. Swashbuckler only has two feats that add more riders to Tumble Through, Tumble Behind and The Bigger they Are, and The Bigger they Are doesn't matter for this conversation because it's a specific action.
So sure, if you have Tumble Behind you're losing that effect, which is incredibly minor.
Again, if you set the DC of Tumble Through to Level Based DC or anything lower, then Tumbling through empty squares becomes one of the best things to do to gain Panache because you're rolling against an incredibly low DC and your penalty for failure is losing 5 feet of movement. Compared to the other ways to get Panache, this would be way too good.
As as a side note, good luck to anyone trying to demoralise their pet mouse, if said mouse was acquired via the Pet feat. It has the same save values you do, so you're really scaring yourself.
Again, if you set the DC of Tumble Through to Level Based DC or anything lower, then Tumbling through empty squares becomes one of the best things to do to gain Panache because you're rolling against an incredibly low DC and your penalty for failure is losing 5 feet of movement. Compared to the other ways to get Panache, this would be way too good.
Actually the best thing to roll is a performance check: it requires nothing but taking an action in combat. "When making a brief performance—one song, a quick dance, or a few jokes—you use the Perform action" and "Performing rarely has an impact on its own, but it might influence the DCs of subsequent Diplomacy checks against the observers, or even change their attitudes if the GM sees fit." A Standard DC seems fine for this as it's not specifically being rolled against anyone.
Secondly, Panache states "The GM might determine that a check to perform a particularly daring action, such as swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery, can gain the bravado trait. These checks typically involve at least a single action and a non-trivial DC. So the Dc doesn't have to be as hard or harder that the saves of foes you'll face but non-trivial [several places like Hazard Experience lists trivial as -5 or more levels lower than the party]. So even a -4 Simple DC or better should be fine for gaining Panache.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the GM might rule that you doing a mere performance check to crack a joke doesn't count as "particularly daring".
Now, doing Performance to dance/move and dare an enemy to Reactive Strike you, when you know/strongly suspect they have RS, that would be more daring.
If you were doing it to get the monster to spend their reaction on you instead of the wizard, I'd be enthusiastic about it. That's the sort of risk-taking distraction that feels very on brand for a swashbuckler.
Well the GM might rule that you doing a mere performance check to crack a joke doesn't count as "particularly daring".
Yeah the only way I'm letting this fly is for Battledancer because it's what the subclass does, but the DC is still going to be based on one of the targets because this is a combat action and a standard DC check is not impressive when the thing you're fighting is a PL+4 BBEG.
Now, doing Performance to dance/move and dare an enemy to Reactive Strike you, when you know/strongly suspect they have RS, that would be more daring.
If you were doing it to get the monster to spend their reaction on you instead of the wizard, I'd be enthusiastic about it. That's the sort of risk-taking distraction that feels very on brand for a swashbuckler.
Exactly.
Some of the stuff people are coming up with here requires ignoring the first part of the description about what Panache is. Tumbling around in empty space so you an avoid the enemy is not impressive, daring, or stylistic. Performing at nobody is not impressive. Fishing for an easy DC by trying to frighten your own pet is not impressive.
Quite the opposite: it's cowardly and lame. Especially if it makes the DC easier, because "I'm tumbling around way over here in order to avoid tumbling through the actual enemy since they're nimble and its difficult" is the exact opposite of the basic class description.
What the DC is to Tumble Through empty space frankly doesn't matter because tumbling through empty space with nothing else going on to make that "action with particular style", it shouldn't generate Panache anyway.
|
|
Well the GM might rule that you doing a mere performance check to crack a joke doesn't count as "particularly daring".Yeah the only way I'm letting this fly is for Battledancer because it's what the subclass does, but the DC is still going to be based on one of the targets because this is a combat action and a standard DC check is not impressive when the thing you're fighting is a PL+4 BBEG.
Now, doing Performance to dance/move and dare an enemy to Reactive Strike you, when you know/strongly suspect they have RS, that would be more daring.
If you were doing it to get the monster to spend their reaction on you instead of the wizard, I'd be enthusiastic about it. That's the sort of risk-taking distraction that feels very on brand for a swashbuckler.
Exactly.
Some of the stuff people are coming up with here requires ignoring the first part of the description about what Panache is. Tumbling around in empty space so you an avoid the enemy is not impressive, daring, or stylistic. Performing at nobody is not impressive. Fishing for an easy DC by trying to frighten your own pet is not impressive.
Quite the opposite: it's cowardly and lame. Especially if it makes the DC easier, because "I'm tumbling around way over here in order to avoid tumbling through the actual enemy since they're nimble and its difficult" is the exact opposite of the basic class description.
What the DC is to Tumble Through empty space frankly doesn't matter because tumbling through empty space with nothing else going on to make that "action with particular style", it shouldn't generate Panache anyway.
What about swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery?
What make these "action with particular style"?
What about swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery?
What make these "action with particular style"?
... is this a serious question? Have you like, never watched a movie? There's a pretty dramatic difference between getting across the room by walking over there vs getting across the room by swinging across on the chandelier, and it's baffling that I need to spell that out.
Considering that bravado spells it out that it needs to be a check, and that swashbucklers panache further builds on it needing to be a non-trivial.
I am not aware of definition of what a trivial dc is numerically means but I typically place it at a levelbased DC 4 levels lower. or count creatures 4 levels lower as trivial. ((similar to encounter scaling, Take a creature of party's level and its a moderate encounter, take a creature 4 levels lower instead and its now trivial encounter ))
The GM is also free and encouraged to use different difficulty threshholds, it used to be a very hard levelbased DC in the CRB.
Yeah I don't think trivial DC is defined, but it's generally going to be something where there's no real chance of failure. But trivial encounter is tricky because it's still an encounter and saying that a class' core mechanic shuts off because the encounter is too easy would feel pretty odd, because if its that easy an encounter what's the point of running it at all?
Like, if this is an encounter the GM is running, and your check targets an enemy, you should be fine. So that should only really apply to something else (like tumbling through empty space which is going to effectively be a trained simple DC since literally anyone who did basic acrobatics can do that).
|
|
... is this a serious question? Have you like, never watched a movie? There's a pretty dramatic difference between getting across the room by walking over there vs getting across the room by swinging across on the chandelier, and it's baffling that I need to spell that out.What about swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery?
What make these "action with particular style"?
I see no difference with Tumbling Through on the way across the room. Especially if there is a price for failure.