Forked Thread: Acrobatic Stunts - What Can You Do (DC?)

[Mistwell]

Forked from: Acrobatic Stunts

Someone should start a thread where people can list the various "stunts" they can think of and the DCs they would set for it.

J from Three Haligonians

I agree. So, what can you do with an Acrobatics Stunt, and what would you set the DC at?

The rule guidelines on what you can do: "Make an Acrobatics check to swing from a chandelier, somersault over an opponent, slide down a staircase on your shield, or attempt any other acrobatic stunt that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try."

The rule guidelines on setting the DC: The general DC is 15, but "The DM sets the DC based on the complexity of the stunt and the danger of the situation...Your DM always has the right to say that a stunt won’t work in a particular situation or to set a high DC."

Let's start with "somersault over an opponent".

What should the DC be? Would it change if the size of your opponent is different from your size?

What else can you do, and what should the DC be?

 

[Nareau]

My feeling on this is that such stunts should err on the side of being too low. Swinging from a chandelier is awesome, and so attempts to do so should usually succeed.

At 1st level, my ranger has a +7 to his acrobatics. So a DC of 15 means he has a 65% chance of success. Here's how I would rate them:

swing from a chandelier: 15
somersault over an opponent: 15
slide down a staircase on your shield: 20
sail slide: 15
[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8970008800328106389&q=parkour&hl=en"]Any of these: 25[/ame]


I would also grant a +2 or +5 circumstance bonus depending on how awesome the action is.

 

[Snotboy]

OT, but those are some of the fastest thugs in town. He'd shake them by a few floors, and bam, they'd still be right on his tail.

 

[Boarstorm]

While entertaining, the cheese factor in that video was extremely high.

I approve.

Anyway, I'd use the level-based guidelines, for the most part. Swinging from a chandelier at level 26 has a higher DC than doing so at level 2. Weird? Sure. But the excitement comes from the risk of failure.

 

[Mengu]

Anyway, I'd use the level-based guidelines, for the most part. Swinging from a chandelier at level 26 has a higher DC than doing so at level 2. Weird? Sure. But the excitement comes from the risk of failure.

I somewhat agree, but the "level-based" thing bothers me a bit. Why don't we just have the DM set an arbitrary number to be rolled on a d20? The rogue wants to swing from a chandelier, roll a 7. Oh the paladin wants to do the same? Let's see him roll a 20. A 19 eh? Close but not close enough, you manage to leap and grab the chandelier, but it doesn't carry your weight and comes crashing down, here, take some damage. On the bright side you are now prone and have the attention of the 9' One-eyed Ogre who got distracted away from your allies with all the ruckus you made.

 

[Stalker0]

I really don't like acrobatic stunts as written. The reason is mechanically the stunt doesn't do anything, in which case why am I using a mechanic? (which has a chance of failure and a penalty for failing).

If my rogue wants to say, "I swing on the chandeller and hit the orc" I say, great, move over there and attack. If my rogue says "I want to swing on the chandeller and hit the orc with a +1" then I would call for a stunt.

But the core mechanic doesn't provide any real bonus, so what's the point?

 

[Starbuck_II]

I really don't like acrobatic stunts as written. The reason is mechanically the stunt doesn't do anything, in which case why am I using a mechanic? (which has a chance of failure and a penalty for failing).

If my rogue wants to say, "I swing on the chandeller and hit the orc" I say, great, move over there and attack. If my rogue says "I want to swing on the chandeller and hit the orc with a +1" then I would call for a stunt.

But the core mechanic doesn't provide any real bonus, so what's the point?

Remember, the example in the DMG was not "I swing on the chandeller and hit the orc"; but "I swing on the chandeller and kick the Ogre"
The rogues goal was push the Ogre into the furnace so the coals would burn him. So he did an atttack roll that just pushed the ogre.
Than based on stunt: DM decided goals did great damage for his level.
It was a stunt because it did more than just attack, it pushed as well as damaged.

Just damaging isn't a stunt unless the player gives a reason why it should be.
Example, "I swing on the chandeller and hit the orc's Fort defense instead of AC because I want to maske him faill prone as well"
That would be a tough DC, but stunt worthy.

 

[yu gnomi]

3.0/3.5 Acrobats

The Acrobatics stunt seems like a very poorly defined concept to me. In order to get inspiration for what an Acrobatic stunt would be, I looked at the Thief Acrobat class from 3.0 Complete Adventurer (These examples are class features).

Kip-up: as long as you are wearing light armor, and carrying a light load, you can stand as a free action. No skill check in 3.0, probably a low DC for 4ed.

Fast Acrobatics & Steady Stance: these features allow movement at normal speed while balancing or climbing, and allow character to not grant combat advantage (not "flat-footed" in 3.0) while balancing or climbing respectively.

I think that making Acrobatics checks at higher DC for balancing could allow for similar advantages, while a combination of Athletics and Acrobatics checks would work for fast climbing and/or not granting combat advantage.

Acrobatic Charge: Ignore difficult terrain and enemies while moving (presumably by flipping, cartwheeling and somersaulting over obstacles/foes). Is a class feature for 3.0 class, with caveat that an occasional skill check may be required. (3.0 rules also vague).

For 4ed, I think the equivalent of this ability would be a succession of Acrobatics checks made during a move action, the DC of each check would have to be decided on an ad-hoc basis (depending, I suppose, on the height of the obstruction). But for each check after the first, made in single action, tack on a successively larger penalty. I also see no reason why leaping/somersaulting over an enemy's head would not provoke an opportunity attack.

There are other Thief Acrobat features that are acrobatically oriented, like Defensive Roll and Agile Fighting, but these do not seem like the sorts of benefits that a skill check can provide (specifically, increasing AC and absorbing damage from a melee attack).

As for specific DC values, with no experience at DM'ing 4ed, I am really not sure what values to assign. I also have a suspicion that watching Jackie Chan movies might be a better guide to what Acrobatic stunts are, than anything WOTC has published.

 

[yu gnomi]

Have mulled over my previous post a bit, and decided that 3.0 rules for Thief-Acrobat are less useful as guidelines than I thought they would be. I think kung fu movies are probably better sources of inspiration (especially Jackie Chan movies).

My own feelings about acrobatic stunts is that while they can often be death-defying and stupefying, they should not be damaging to one's foes in and of themselves. (Although it may be that while flipping through the air, an acrobatic swordsman might slice through a line or tether, which could drop a heavy object on his enemies, or something like that.)

However, I do feel that a general consequence of a failed acrobatics check, should be falling prone. If one fails an attempted stunt that involves jumping over or pushing off of an enemy, then the acrobat ends up prone at his enemies feet.

With that in mind, I would suggest three stunts that are useful from the prone position: (the first two are simple and may not even need a check)

Kip Up: Stand as a minor action, rather than a move action. Can only be performed in light armor, and I think you need at least one hand free.

Roll: Move action. Move in a straight line until you reach an obstacle, or are out of movement. Use your normal movement rate, not crawling rate.

Leg Sweep: Standard action.Acrobatics check vs. foes Reflex. Success = foe drops prone as well. Can only be performed while prone.

Edit: on second thought Acrobatics vs Reflex, for leg sweep, is probably out of balance. Maybe (Acrobatics -5) vs. Reflex.

 

[yu gnomi]

Just remembered something. The black chick on the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon was an acrobat, and she pole-vaulted a lot. So I would think that stunts involving pole vaulting would be kosher. i.e. vault kicks that pushes an enemy back multiple squares, leaping with pole at a group of enemies and pushing several back at once, etc. (watch the cartoon).

On the other hand, I checked the equipment list in the PHB, and couldn't find 10' pole listed anywhere. So maybe pole vaulting is impossible.