tumble + fly?

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

Lets set the situation here so everyone can understand why this rule issue came up (which didn't really slow our game down at all we almost always end up agreeing on these things eventually). The encounter consisted of three flying creatures of medium size, which started out on the ground. After combat was initiated two of the three took to the air to avoid melee combat and use their many different spell like abilities against the party. The wizard of the group quickly cast fly on "Borc Killer's" character, which was soon followed by a mass enlarge. Later a gravely wounded enlarged "Borc Killer" wanted to retreat from his flanked mid-air position by tumbling down through the air in order to avoid attacks of opportunity.

This is when Borc ruled that he would not be able to use his tumbling skill while flying. I believe that this was the correct decision,


--edit--


And for my 2cents Borc has been doing an exceptional job as a DM and its not really his first time this is the fourth or fifth adventure in a series that he has been running and he has done a better job with each one.

Ah ha! The culprit situation outs! Outstanding group you have there. Given the situation my reaction as a GM might've been slightly different, but not by much. Can I ask why he chose not to exercise the Withdraw movement option? It would have accomplished his goal without undue complication.

That said, it's my opinion that the GM's ruling was, at the least, fair and just, as it needs to be to keep a game fun for all.

That aside for a moment, let me ask a slighly different question that may appear to be off-track, but it's not.

If a character is NOT under any flightspell, but is, and has been, in free fall - can they tumble through threatened squares as they fall to avoid AoO's?

 

[Yorik the Great]

We decided at the same time that the tumble that you make during freefall to prevent 1d6 damage was basically your landing that was improved by the tumble skill, and that you would not be able to avoid attacks of opportunity while free falling.

 

[LGodamus]

I think people take the word tumbling a little bit too literally....I dont see it as a floor routine from the olypics......that stuff would be completely useless in battle other than helping you die quickly...Tumble is more of an evasion skill :IE sliding between an ogres legs , or spinning quickly around a sword blow to come up past your opponent not necessarily executing a half gainer over their head.

 

[MerakSpielman]

It depends on what your DM considers "normal movement".

-Hyp.

So, what types of movement carry the "normal" descriptor?

What types of movement are not normal?

Until we can figure out which movement-types are normal and which are abnormal, I don't see that this discussion can really go anywhere.

 

[Artoomis]

Borc: I like your analysis on the fact that tumbling with "good" maneuverability would cost you movement. This could be an excellent way of handling "tumble."

Allow it at no penalty, but each square you tumble through costs triple movement, representing the twists and turns taken in the air. It's simple, straightfoward, follows the rules on flying and lets the player use his skill while flying.

It would be really hard to argue that this is unreasonable. With a fly speed of 60, you'd be able to tumble a grand total of 20 feet - and that would be your total movement.

I like it!

 

[Borc]

Saying "I ban it" doesn't constitute a rule - you have to specifically list WHAT you ban.

I think its pretty clear that I am banning Tumbling while flying.. that is what this whole post is about.

While this is certainly a choice based upon individual playing style, your selection of D&D as a system suggests that you are interested in allowing players to contribute in a meaningful way and affect the world around them. To then strip away abilities with zero contribution to the story (ie - is it essential to the plot that a flying rogue cannot tumble?) is being more than a little silly.

If it has no contribution to the story then why does it matter whether I say yea or nay? And no it isn’t essential but I do not believe that it is Fair, and that is what it comes down to when you are being the Arbitrator.

Tumble lets you avoid melee strikes. That's it. That's all it does. It doesn't affect your movement in any other way.

Finally - I'd certainly allow tumbling while swimming. It's just maneuvering around after all.

If tumbling while swimming is just maneuvering around after all then why is it not that tumbling while flying is just maneuvering around as well? If you allow flying and you by the charts on pg20DMG then that would mean that there HAS to be some penalties incurred while tumbling in the air with good maneuverability.

Yes perfect maneuverability lets you fly around with no penalties and granted when you tumble your movement gets halved but that is just when you are on the ground with no restrictions, whereas good maneuverability has penalties for some movements. So there HAS to then be (logically thinking) another penalty to tumbling while flying if in fact there should be tumbling at all.

Borc one problem with your ruling that jumps out at me is this: you keep saying turns , as in game terminology, it doesnt mean changing facing as you seem to be saying it actually means changing directions ....IE I am running north and TURN to the east ... .........tumbling, like cartwheeling,spinning and dodging involves no turns.

Every time you try to tumble “around” someone that involves changing direction, which would be at least turning to the left to go around the left, then turning back to the right to go straight to the side of them, then turning right to get behind them, then turning all the way around to face them. So all of these turns take a 5ft movement by the books description of “turn” pg 20 DMG, so therefore when you tumble your movement is halved, which would mean that when you tumble that ability to turn (90 degrees) would be doubled (making it 10 ft to do a 90 degree turn) right? But spinning would be a “turn in place” move (as well as cartwheeling IMO) which would then be worth -10 ft following the same logic as above.

Because what you are doing when you are tumbling is “avoiding melee strikes”

Borc: I like your analysis on the fact that tumbling with "good" maneuverability would cost you movement. This could be an excellent way of handling "tumble."

Allow it at no penalty, but each square you tumble through costs triple movement, representing the twists and turns taken in the air. It's simple, straightfoward, follows the rules on flying and lets the player use his skill while flying.

It would be really hard to argue that this is unreasonable. With a fly speed of 60, you'd be able to tumble a grand total of 20 feet - and that would be your total movement.

I like it!

You know I think I could live with a 10ft move (a 20ft move is only a penalty of 10ft from a normal tumble check). Which would mean they could tumble a total of 20ft per round.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think its pretty clear that I am banning Tumbling while flying.. that is what this whole post is about.

First up - I'm Saeviomagy, not artoomis - artoomis's quote is later...

No - it's not clear. You're banning THIS PLAYER from tumbling in THIS SITUATION - beyond that your arguments suggest that you might be doing something else.

If it has no contribution to the story then why does it matter whether I say yea or nay? And no it isn’t essential but I do not believe that it is Fair, and that is what it comes down to when you are being the Arbitrator.

If it has no contribution to the story (this includes rulings that greatly increase the power of a single character to levels where it disrupts the campaign), then banning it has zero positive effects. While, at the same time, banning it has the negative effect of annoying a player.

ESPECIALLY when he was going to rely on that ability to get him out of a tight situation.

This really is making the difference between life and death for him. It obviously seemed to him that tumble should work mid-air just fine, just like the rules say it does.

What you're doing is making a house rule. Not only that, you're making a house rule when it will screw over a player.

If, before the game, you'd said "by the way, you can't tumble while flying", then I daresay the aforementioned rogue would have considered retreat earlier.

The rules exist so that players and GM's have common ground upon which to base their playing of the game. If the GM suddenly changes those rules, then that's an abuse of the GM's power (ie - only the GM really has the power to change rules, and the PCs rely on him to use it in a responsible manner).

If tumbling while swimming is just maneuvering around after all then why is it not that tumbling while flying is just maneuvering around as well? If you allow flying and you by the charts on pg20DMG then that would mean that there HAS to be some penalties incurred while tumbling in the air with good maneuverability.

I didn't say allow it with no penalties, I just said "don't ban it"

Personally - in the situation given above, I'd let him tumble, possibly at a penalty if he agrees, THEN between games propose the "no tumbling while flying" rule.
I think that doing it the way you've done it is tremendously unfair to the players who may be banking on certain rules when they execute a plan.
The only real alternative is to rewind time when a rule is changed, and that's such a pain it's almost impossible to do properly.

 

[Borc]

First up - I'm Saeviomagy, not artoomis - artoomis's quote is later...

sorry bout that. i edited in word then brought over into a reply to artoomis, just copied and pasted so that it wouldnt get misunderstood as to what i was replying to. not neccessarily "who" i was replying to.

No - it's not clear. You're banning THIS PLAYER from tumbling in THIS SITUATION - beyond that your arguments suggest that you might be doing something else.

If it has no contribution to the story (this includes rulings that greatly increase the power of a single character to levels where it disrupts the campaign), then banning it has zero positive effects. While, at the same time, banning it has the negative effect of annoying a player.

ESPECIALLY when he was going to rely on that ability to get him out of a tight situation.

This really is making the difference between life and death for him. It obviously seemed to him that tumble should work mid-air just fine, just like the rules say it does.

What you're doing is making a house rule. Not only that, you're making a house rule when it will screw over a player.

If, before the game, you'd said "by the way, you can't tumble while flying", then I daresay the aforementioned rogue would have considered retreat earlier.

The rules exist so that players and GM's have common ground upon which to base their playing of the game. If the GM suddenly changes those rules, then that's an abuse of the GM's power (ie - only the GM really has the power to change rules, and the PCs rely on him to use it in a responsible manner).

And no i am not banning this player from tumbling in that situation, it just so happened that he was the only one with fly. i would have made the same decision had it been anyone at the table. Now maybe it wasnt the best decision but at the time i had concensus from everyone at the table EXCEPT the person that was affected.

And nowhere in the rules does it say either way that tumble should work just as normal while flying. So please do not try to slide "Non-Factual" information into this argument, because if it did say that then we wouldnt be having this argument.

Personally - in the situation given above, I'd let him tumble, possibly at a penalty if he agrees, THEN between games propose the "no tumbling while flying" rule.
I think that doing it the way you've done it is tremendously unfair to the players who may be banking on certain rules when they execute a plan.
The only real alternative is to rewind time when a rule is changed, and that's such a pain it's almost impossible to do properly.

Your correct, i could have approached it the way you prescribed, but i did not think of just imposing a penalty, and that is good advice for future use when i run into a situation like that again.

I didn't say allow it with no penalties, I just said "don't ban it"

So moving on now that i can be open to tumbling while flying, what would you impose as a fair penalty? Because i do not believe that it should just be half of his movement and thats it (just like tumbling normally).

 

[Scion]

Tumble while flying? sure. Can you tumble while walking? Can you tumble while running? Is 'flying' such a special mode of movement as to disallow any sort of training the character has had? nah.. its a simple, rarely occuring, very fun way to go. No need to nerf something that wont happen terribly often and hardly even matters doesnt break anything, pc's have fun and get to use their skills.. cool.. everyone is happy. Why would it even be a problem? If a character has spent 15 skill points on a skill he better well get good uses out of it!

 

[Pielorinho]

Here's the way I think aobut it, though I'm not sure if I can describe it well.

When you tumble, you move in essentially as straight a line as you could otherwise move. I believe, for example, that you may tumble as part of a the straight movement of a charge: certainly nothing in the rules explicitly forbids this.

When you tumble in air, your momentum or direction doesn't change; only the position of your body relative to itself changes. You're twisting, pulling your knees up, going feet-first and then head-first, all in an effort to make yourself a confusing, difficult target.

Wanna know what it looks like in real life? Watch Olympic high-divers. They're tumbling in free-fall.

Again, the most important consideration is that it increases the fun of the game to allow it, inasmuch as it lets a player use his abilities to their best advantage. When in doubt, say yes.

Daniel