Move Silently while Tumbling?

[Astlin]

Now to my next question. The rules say that you can move silently as a part of "normal" movement. Is tumbling considered "normal" movement?

If it's not, then you can't tumble and move silently, you must choose one. Thoughts on this interpretation?

Normal = Standard.
If your move is 30' your normal or standard move is 30'.

AFAIK there is no aditional benefit or penalty to move silently for climbing, balancing, swiming, flying, jumping or tumbling.


Hmm, you say you are not the DM. Are you the groups rules lawyer or do you have it out for the rogue?


Astlin

[edit] The quote is "You can move up to one-half your normal speed at no penalty"
Normal is a limitation on distance traveled, not a limitation on funky moves.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hm... I don't entirely get it. I can't think of why you want to tumble and move silently. If you move silently, the enemy doesn't know you're there, and he gets no AoO in the first place. And if he knows you're there, there's no point in moving silently, right?

In what situation do you want to use the two skills together?

 

[NPC]

In this game I'm a player but I'm normally the DM, so that's why I'm interested in how this would be ruled. Also, the other DM sometimes defers to me on rules issues, since he doesn't know them as well as I do.

Am I a rules lawyer? Absolutely. We play our game as closely by the rules as possible. So we often pipe in and offer opinions if a questionable rules interpretation is being put forth.

Anyway, as to why the rogue would want to move silently and tumble, here's the answer. Our rogue was invisible and in a threatened square. He had been detected by a huge snake in the previous round. He wanted to tumble away to another square and not provoke an AoO from the snake that had detected him. He also wanted to try and hide from all enemies.

As you know, you're not silent when invisible, so invisible creatures need to set listen DC's while they're moving around. If a successful listen check is made, you know which square the invisible enemy is in.

Our rogue wanted to set the highest possible listen DC, and was therefore against having a tumbling penalty added to his move silent check. It was kind of a complicated situation, my apologies for not explaining it very well.

Do I have it out for the rogue? No. Not at all. It benefits the party if the rogue can tumble silently. It makes him that much more deadly. I'd just like to know if it's by the rules or not.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Anyway, as to why the rogue would want to move silently and tumble, here's the answer. Our rogue was invisible and in a threatened square. He had been detected by a huge snake in the previous round. He wanted to tumble away to another square and not provoke an AoO from the snake that had detected him. He also wanted to try and hide from all enemies.

As you know, you're not silent when invisible, so invisible creatures need to set listen DC's while they're moving around. If a successful listen check is made, you know which square the invisible enemy is in.

This is why you need a Bard singing to provide covering noise and give the party +2 attack and damage. (with the right instrument from S&S, ummm, lute? Cant recall...)

 

[Astlin]

I'm sory, it came out harsher than I intended.


I am going to get HIPS in 2 more levels. I am going to want to tumble and move silently most of the time. I will never know who can see me and who can't. Tumbling will help keep me alive as I am trying to get into position.

HIPS+Move Silently+Boots of SnS+Tumble+Sneak attack = Wahoo!

I am a Rogue/Scorcerer, he is wonderful to role-play, but he can use every advantage that he can get in combat. The poor boy will have a BAB of +6 at level 11 (and a fort save of 2).

Astlin

 

[NPC]

Astlin that sounds like a really fun character to play. I can see why you'd want to maximize moving silently.

Yeah, perhaps I'm being too hard on the rogue. I need to think about this some more.

On the WoTC boards, one gent suggested raising the difficulty of the tumble check and if the user fails this check, then assign a penalty to the move silent check.

Like I said, I need to mull this over some more before I come to a conclusion.

 

[Astlin]

Astlin that sounds like a really fun character to play. I can see why you'd want to maximize moving silently.

Yeah, perhaps I'm being too hard on the rogue. I need to think about this some more.

On the WoTC boards, one gent suggested raising the difficulty of the tumble check and if the user fails this check, then assign a penalty to the move silent check.

Like I said, I need to mull this over some more before I come to a conclusion.

LOL he is an absolute blast to play, just a little frustrating once the dice come out.

Yea, I would fully expect to suffer the consequences of failing a tumbling roll in those circumstances. He is just too flashy (and vulnerable) to not try it though.

Astlin

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Our rogue was invisible and in a threatened square. He had been detected by a huge snake in the previous round. He wanted to tumble away to another square and not provoke an AoO from the snake that had detected him. He also wanted to try and hide from all enemies.

As you know, you're not silent when invisible, so invisible creatures need to set listen DC's while they're moving around. If a successful listen check is made, you know which square the invisible enemy is in.

They still get no AoO against him: he's still concealed, and that means no AoO (it's only logical: they know his general position, down to five feet, but they still don't see if he stands on guard or strips and does a jig.)
And If I find out where the invisible bastard is located, I always make sure that I tell everyone (and shouting "the bugger's here" is a free action)


But the "I don't know who can see me"- argument holds some water.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Not sure if D&D giant snakes are different but snakes are generally very poor in the sight department and "see" through smell. In this case the concealment provided by invis wouldn't help and a tumble would be in order. Also if you are "spotted" you don't necessarrily know how and to what extent, do they actually see me or is it jsut a good guess. So again it would be wise to be on the safe side and just tumble.

 

[bret]

They still get no AoO against him: he's still concealed, and that means no AoO (it's only logical: they know his general position, down to five feet, but they still don't see if he stands on guard or strips and does a jig.)
And If I find out where the invisible bastard is located, I always make sure that I tell everyone (and shouting "the bugger's here" is a free action)


But the "I don't know who can see me"- argument holds some water.

Where does it say that concealment negates AoO? As far as I know, a character would still get an AoO against an invisible opponent that did something that would normally provoke one.