Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Tumble
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Friend of the Dork" data-source="post: 5679568" data-attributes="member: 91954"><p>¨Thanks for the link, didnt realize that. </p><p></p><p>It seems my ruling last night was consistent with the update (and 3.5 more or less). </p><p></p><p>For multiple opponents - both my book and the link says clearly there is +2 per enemy beyond the first. </p><p></p><p>There is no mention if there is one or more rolls, but I agree it is more elegant to demand one roll to beat the all, and I suppose I can track the +5 DC for moving through separately. </p><p></p><p>8. This is where I am still uncertain. If they wanted only the actual squares tumbled through to reduce movement they could have written "count as difficult terrain, or simply "the square(s) tumbled through takes 2 squares of movement per square". </p><p></p><p>Instead they wrote "when moving in this way"... ah figures. </p><p></p><p>In my game I don't want it too easy to dance around the battlefield ignoring enemies like in 3.5, but I don't want it impossible for rogues to get their flanking either. So essentially they should be able to get behind someone if not too far away, but tumbling through a line of soldiers should be very difficult.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Edit: Oh I found the paragraph on multiple opponents: </p><p></p><p>Acrobatics: How does Acrobatics (Core Rulebook, page 87) work when you use it to avoid attacks of opportunity? When do you make checks? How many do you make? </p><p></p><p>Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy,<strong> but only once per foe.</strong> The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first.</p><p></p><p>So it seems by RAW it is once per foe, with cumulative +2 DC after the first. This makes it almost impossible to tumble past many foes unless you have skill mastery Acrobatics - sooner or later you will roll low. The only advantage is that the tumbler decides which one to roll first. </p><p></p><p>I might do the "one roll to rule them all" anyway as a house rule, simply to prevent excessive rolling, but also to give the rogue a chance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Friend of the Dork, post: 5679568, member: 91954"] ¨Thanks for the link, didnt realize that. It seems my ruling last night was consistent with the update (and 3.5 more or less). For multiple opponents - both my book and the link says clearly there is +2 per enemy beyond the first. There is no mention if there is one or more rolls, but I agree it is more elegant to demand one roll to beat the all, and I suppose I can track the +5 DC for moving through separately. 8. This is where I am still uncertain. If they wanted only the actual squares tumbled through to reduce movement they could have written "count as difficult terrain, or simply "the square(s) tumbled through takes 2 squares of movement per square". Instead they wrote "when moving in this way"... ah figures. In my game I don't want it too easy to dance around the battlefield ignoring enemies like in 3.5, but I don't want it impossible for rogues to get their flanking either. So essentially they should be able to get behind someone if not too far away, but tumbling through a line of soldiers should be very difficult. Edit: Oh I found the paragraph on multiple opponents: Acrobatics: How does Acrobatics (Core Rulebook, page 87) work when you use it to avoid attacks of opportunity? When do you make checks? How many do you make? Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy,[B] but only once per foe.[/B] The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first. So it seems by RAW it is once per foe, with cumulative +2 DC after the first. This makes it almost impossible to tumble past many foes unless you have skill mastery Acrobatics - sooner or later you will roll low. The only advantage is that the tumbler decides which one to roll first. I might do the "one roll to rule them all" anyway as a house rule, simply to prevent excessive rolling, but also to give the rogue a chance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Tumble
Top