Tumble Skill help

[Quantum-Wolf]

Okay.

So there was an issue about Tumble that came up on a table I play on the other day and we couldn't fully figure it out.

First Tumble Reference Material:

Tumble DC Task
15Treat a fall as if it were 10 feet shorter than it really is when determining damage.

15 Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal
movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity
while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks
of opportunity normally. Check separately for each
opponent you move past, in the order in which you
pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie).
Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the
Tumble DC.

25 Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied
by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent)
as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks
of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you
stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and
provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy.
Check separately for each opponent. Each additional
enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.


Okay. Now for the question. It pertains to the final Tumble Task. Moving through an area occupied by an enemy and the +2 for each additional enemy after the first.

So, if you Tumble through an enemy's square, at a DC 25 what do they constitute as an 'additional enemy'? Are they referring to if more than one enemy occupies the square (In the case of creatures whose size is less than Small)? or do they mean an 'additional enemy' as for each enemy who threatens that square?

Okay, using my attempt at a Diagram, I'll try to make sure it is explained a bit more. Assume the Player is the green X, and the Enemy you are moving through is the Red X. If the green X moves through the Red X, does the Tumble check become 25 for the Red X itself, then checked against each of the White X's? Thus having to make a total of 7 Tumble checks? 6 of which would be this?: 25+2 / 25+4 / 25+6 / 25+8 / 25+10 / 25+12


XXX
XX
XXX

Or is it simply a Tumble of 25 to move 'through' the Red X, then a separate Tumble checks to move 'out' of the square using the DC 15 +2 for each additional enemy?


I really hope this made sense. >.<

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Say there was a line of enemies in front of you. In this case, we'll say 3 soldiers deep. You can't end your movement in an occupied square, so if you wanted to tumble past all 3 of them, the DC would be 29, because there's two enemies after the first. If you had an open square between the first enemy before the other two (looks like: X_XX with underscore being the open space), I think you'd be rolling twice, once at DC 25, the next at DC 27, but I may be wrong. The first enemy is threatening that open space so you technically have to beat DC 15 to avoid an AoO from him on that second check, too. But if you're anywere at all close to making the DC 27, that shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[PolterGhost]

It's fairly simple, if you take the text literally.

Firstly, when they say "For each additional enemy", this means moving through multiple squares occupied by enemies, no matter where they are on the field.

Second, when against a single enemy, the DC25 check will allow you to move through their square, and then exit into a square adjacent without provoking AoO. However, if you want to

XXXX

move to the blue X, you'll have to roll
DC15 to move out of the opponent's threatened area
then
DC25 to pass into the opponent's square.
You won't have to roll again to move out of the threatened white X into the blue X since you already passed the DC15 check.
(House Rule Territory: I'd rule that DC25 is more than enough to handle this)

Now, if you wanted to do a more complicated maneuver like

XXXXXX

travel past two opponents to the blue X, here's how it would work (if you were going in a perfectly straight line):
DC15 to move out of first Red X's threat zone.
DC25 to move into first Red X's square.
Move into white X.
DC17 to move out of second Red X's threat zone.
DC27 to move into second Red X's square.
Move into white X.
Move into blue X.
(House Rule Territory: I don't see the point behind rolling more than once. The way we do turns when we play is that you declare exactly where you move and who you move past (or through in the case of Tumble) so that you only ever need one single check to see where you pass or fail. So if you did the above situation and rolled a 26 on a single Tumble roll after declaring "I'm moving through both opponent's squares to reach the blue X", you would pass into the first white X, stop there, and then provoke AoO from the second red X. It puts much less of a chance of skill failure at the cost of having to rely on one really good roll to put you through, which is near negligible in the first place.)

The one portion of the rules that the DC15 has that the DC25 doesn't is
"Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie)."
The way this is worded ("Check separately...in the order in which you pass them") makes it sound like it works partly like the house rules above, where you decide exactly where you path your turn in advance (which I'm fairly certain is a standard D&D rule to begin with.) It essentially lets you choose who you let AoO you if you fail a Tumble check, but this is an entirely tangential matter.



And for one last example

XXXX

this situation. It may not seem too much of an issue, but here's how the turn would go for this:
DC15 to move out of first red X's threatened area.
DC25 to move into first red X's square.
DC17 to move out of second red X's threatened area.
DC27 to move into second red X's square.
Move into blue X.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Firstly, when they say "For each additional enemy", this means moving through multiple squares occupied by enemies, no matter where they are on the field.

I disagree. Tumbling is done as part of movement ad costs twice as much movement as normal walking (barring a higher DC to do it faster). The rules are pretty specific that you only tumble for the squares you say you are. If you tumbled one square, then walked 3, then tumbled through 2, I'm pretty sure those would be considered completely different checks, and the DC wouldn't be affected by the first tumble's conditions.

Take another skill like Jump, which also is done as part of movement. We'll use monk as an example just so insane distances are plausible in one move action. Say there's two "hurdles" in the way at different points where you're trying to go with some distance between them. Wouldn't you treat those as completely separate checks?

(House Rule Territory: I don't see the point behind rolling more than once. The way we do turns when we play is that you declare exactly where you move and who you move past (or through in the case of Tumble) so that you only ever need one single check to see where you pass or fail. So if you did the above situation and rolled a 26 on a single Tumble roll after declaring "I'm moving through both opponent's squares to reach the blue X", you would pass into the first white X, stop there, and then provoke AoO from the second red X. It puts much less of a chance of skill failure at the cost of having to rely on one really good roll to put you through, which is near negligible in the first place.)

I'm actually pretty sure this IS the rule. The rules say it's DC 25 to tumble through a creature's space, right? Well, I can't think of a single way to do that without first being adjacent to the creature (or moving adjacent to him) and then moving out of that square (ie, his threatened area) to get into his. Since this is a scenario impossible to ever avoid logically, if the designers really intended you to roll twice, you'd think they'd mention that somewhere, instead of just saying it's DC 25.

So, my take is, for each tumbling action or consecutive string of actions, it's a single skill check at the highest DC if several different DCs would apply. Making the lower DCs but not the higher one(s) means you accomplish those tasks, but not the harder one(s). This makes the most sense to me and definitely seems to be RAI and arguably RAW.

 

[PolterGhost]

I disagree. Tumbling is done as part of movement ad costs twice as much movement as normal walking (barring a higher DC to do it faster). The rules are pretty specific that you only tumble for the squares you say you are. If you tumbled one square, then walked 3, then tumbled through 2, I'm pretty sure those would be considered completely different checks, and the DC wouldn't be affected by the first tumble's conditions.

Actually, I think I'm going to side with you here. I misread Tumble as being the move action as opposed to part of one.

I'm actually pretty sure this IS the rule. The rules say it's DC 25 to tumble through a creature's space, right? Well, I can't think of a single way to do that without first being adjacent to the creature (or moving adjacent to him) and then moving out of that square (ie, his threatened area) to get into his. Since this is a scenario impossible to ever avoid logically, if the designers really intended you to roll twice, you'd think they'd mention that somewhere, instead of just saying it's DC 25.

Just because you make sense doesn't mean the rules do. AFAIK, if you move out of an opponent's threatened area, you provoke an AoO. As it is, you're moving out of an adjacent square (typically threatened, unless opponent is unarmed, using a whip, or using a reach weapon) into a different square.

With this same logic, one could also assume that you provoke AoO when performing things like Bull Rushes before you even enter the opponent's square. While it doesn't seem that this is how things are supposed to be according to the RAI, it certainly does seem that way when considering the RAW about AoO.

So, my take is, for each tumbling action or consecutive string of actions, it's a single skill check at the highest DC if several different DCs would apply. Making the lower DCs but not the higher one(s) means you accomplish those tasks, but not the harder one(s). This makes the most sense to me and definitely seems to be RAI and arguably RAW.

Ah, but it's not RAW. RAW states rather clearly that you have to "Check separately for each opponent you move past" and "Check separately for each opponent," not to take a single check against everyone, even though that very well may be the RAI.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ah, but it's not RAW. RAW states rather clearly that you have to "Check separately for each opponent you move past" and "Check separately for each opponent," not to take a single check against everyone, even though that very well may be the RAI.

I'll just argue that by the letter of the law, "check separately for each opponent..." doesn't have to mean "roll a separate skill check." It could just as easily mean "take your tumble result and check it against each DC." A "check" as a noun is a fairly well defined term in 3E. There's skill checks, ability checks, caster level checks... If it had said "roll a check" or "make a check" or some other version using check as a noun, RAW would be pretty case closed (and unreasonable, as you noted). But it uses check as a verb, and thus there is no definitive RAW interpretation.

That's it for me trying to rules-lawyer, though. I stopped caring about absolute letter of the law RAW over basic common sense a long time ago, even if the silly interpretation is in fact RAW I don't even particularly care unless I end up with a DM who's stubborn about it.

With this same logic, one could also assume that you provoke AoO when performing things like Bull Rushes before you even enter the opponent's square. While it doesn't seem that this is how things are supposed to be according to the RAI, it certainly does seem that way when considering the RAW about AoO.

That logic actually is the RAW, in this case. Both Bull Rush and Overrun are pretty explicit in stating that the AoO generated from using them is due to entering the opponent's space (which in turn means you're leaving a threatened square, since in D&D you only provoke for leaving threatened squares, not entering them; if the foe had no melee weapon to attack you with, he wouldn't get the AoO anyway). Both offer the Improved feat for that maneuver to eliminate or lessen the AoOs you provoke for the movement to start the maneuver.

 

[Quantum-Wolf]

Thanks for Info

Wow, after having read all of your responses, I realized some things myself. The reason it is a DC 25 to tumble through an opponent is because the DC 25 covers all possible AoO from enemies that could attack into that square. (Assuming two spots are left open around a single guy and the rest are filled with enemies).

The bigger problem you all are ignoring, is the part that states ‘Failure means you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy’ So if you are moving throughsay, 3 guys and end in the white square:
X X X X X
The DC’s (Assume you DO roll separately) would be 25/27/29.
If you make it past the first two, but not the third one, what happens? You can’t Occupy the same square as the second guy (Short of being prone). Do you then wind up prone? (3.0 actually stated that you did, 3.5 removed that part).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

If you make it past the first two, but not the third one, what happens? You can’t Occupy the same square as the second guy (Short of being prone). Do you then wind up prone? (3.0 actually stated that you did, 3.5 removed that part).

Unless the corridor is only 5 ft wide, the most logical way to handle it is to force the tumbler to end his movement to one side (his choice) of the last enemy he could tumble through the square of.

If you can't do that...look at the Bull Rush rules again. The line on failure notes, "If you fail to beat the defender’s Strength check result, you move 5 feet straight back to where you were before you moved into his space. If that space is occupied, you fall prone in that space."

Then look at Overrun's results if you fail: "Consequences. If you succeed in knocking your opponent prone, you can continue your movement as normal. If you fail and are knocked prone in turn, you have to move 5 feet back the way you came and fall prone, ending your movement there. If you fail but are not knocked prone, you have to move 5 feet back the way you came, ending your movement there. If that square is occupied, you fall prone in that square."

Looks like a pretty clear rule precedent to me. I'd say you end up prone in the square of the last foe you managed to successfully tumble through. (And you'd be quite screwed at that point, needless to say).

 

[Quantum-Wolf]

Okay. Now for the question. It pertains to the final Tumble Task. Moving through an area occupied by an enemy and the +2 for each additional enemy after the first.

So, if you Tumble through an enemy's square, at a DC 25 what do they constitute as an 'additional enemy'? Are they referring to if more than one enemy occupies the square (In the case of creatures whose size is less than Small)? or do they mean an 'additional enemy' as for each enemy who threatens that square?

Okay, using my attempt at a Diagram, I'll try to make sure it is explained a bit more. Assume the Player is the green X, and the Enemy you are moving through is the Red X. If the green X moves through the Red X, does the Tumble check become 25 for the Red X itself, then checked against each of the White X's? Thus having to make a total of 7 Tumble checks? 6 of which would be this?: 25+2 / 25+4 / 25+6 / 25+8 / 25+10 / 25+12


XXX
XX
XXX

Or is it simply a Tumble of 25 to move 'through' the Red X, then a separate Tumble checks to move 'out' of the square using the DC 15 +2 for each additional enemy?


I really hope this made sense. >.<

Okay, I have two friends, both of them DMs and they keep telling me that the rules are not clear and that there is no way to KNOW what the rule is for this since Apparently Tumble is not clear on the actual instance of this.

Is THERE any rule clarification officially posted on Tumble? All of what you guys have said makes perfect sense to me, but they keep refusing to believe me because A) I apparently know nothing.. B) None of this is 'official', it's all opinions, and C) Well I don't remember, but I'm sure it had to do with I'm stupid and it all of this doesn't make sense.. So I apologize that my two DM friends are stupid when it comes to things that make sense and refuse to believe it because they believe no one can 'know' what should be the case and thus no one is right on what should be done.

 

[Dandu]

Have you checked the FAQ?