Tumbling Through Enemy-Occupied Space

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A DC 25 check lets you tumble through the guy. There's no extra check "on the way out," just like a single DC 15 check lets you run around through as many of a single foe's threatened squares as you want and your movement allows.

 

[Nifelhein]

You always check once for each enemy, no matter how large, gargantuan or colossal he might be. On the many tests issue, i wouyld rule that once the enemy has been able to stop you, that is that, you gotta try something else that round, like going around, but cecrtainly not through him again.

if that would be the case, i would rule that you loose the movement cost needed to enter the square, doubled unless the -10 penalty is applied, so each attempt would cost you 10ft of movement in optimum situations.

Note that a tricky Dm can easily make the ground not a plain and easy tumbling ground without mch effort, heightening the DCs by 5 is an easy task and that usually means charging is not an option too.

 

[sullivan]

A DC 25 check lets you tumble through the guy. There's no extra check "on the way out," just like a single DC 15 check lets you run around through as many of a single foe's threatened squares as you want and your movement allows.

Further, the way it reads you only need a single check for a single opponent to move through all the squares he occupies. You have to be careful about trying to chain together occupied square tumbles though when moving from opponent to opponent because if you fail the check "Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space" says you go back to the last legal occupiable square.

I'm not sure you need to do an extra DC 15 check for opponents that are within what would normally be threatening range while moving through the occupied square. Nothing in the Tumble would suggest this, and in fact it would suggest otherwise. However I'm not sure if you are actually vulnerable to AoO when moving through the occupied square due cover (I'm sure this has been discussed here adnaseum). You might be Threatened (3.5 is different than 3.0 in that it isn't explicit that this lack of AoO is due to not Theatening due to the cover), but no AoO if the enemy is providing cover.

 

[Nifelhein]

Whenever you tumble, you gotta check any opponents that threaten the spaces you go through, you make the check once for each enemy, I think being in an enemy occupied square makes only a single differencec, the attack may go to the other one instead of the intended target.

Of course I am not considering the cover thing, as i dont think one can arguably think that you are using the one that is not letting you pass as a protection anyway. I would rather keep it simple.

 

[CM]

Here's a new question that our group is not too sure on: When you choose to use Tumble, do you have to use tumbling movement for your entire move action (at half speed), or can you choose specific squares in which you want to move half speed to use tumbling movement (those squares threatened by enemies, generally).

For example, a character wants to tumble past two enemies flanking him to attack another enemy several spaces away. Does he move at half speed for tumbling the entire way there, or does he only need to use tumbling movement to escape the threatened area of the first two enemies, and use normal movement to close with the third enemy?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

My group generally plays it that you need to Tumble at half speed only through the squares in which you are tumbling. This way, it most resembles other forms of skill-based movement (Climbing at 1/4 speed, Swimming at 1/4 speed, and Jumping).

I have, however, also seen it ruled the other way - that if you are Tumbling at all during your movement, your whole move is done at 1/2 speed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However I'm not sure if you are actually vulnerable to AoO when moving through the occupied square due cover.

Interestingly, the 'Moving through occupied squares' rules explicitly state that you don't have cover when moving through a friendly creature's square. They don't make any comment either way about moving through a hostile creature's square!

-Hyp.

 

[Parlan]

Another question: how does the testing work with the increased DC for addition enemies? You have to roll for each enemy but would it be

If for example you had three enemies' spaces you wanted to tumble through, would that be:
DC 25, DC 27, and DC 29
or
All three DC 29?

 

[sullivan]

Interestingly, the 'Moving through occupied squares' rules explicitly state that you don't have cover when moving through a friendly creature's square. They don't make any comment either way about moving through a hostile creature's square!

-Hyp.

Ya, I noticed that. Not having an ally provide cover seems like a sound rule to prevent a group leap frogging through a conjested are to avoid AoO. Outside of that I'm not sure what can be made of it. You could say that not explicitly stating otherwise about enemy occupied squares coupled with this explicit statement means there is some sort of reason to expect cover so you can yes it does. That leap seems a tad too big to be safe.

Or you could say that it should infer that traveling through any occupied square does not provide cover. Still doesn't ring particularly true.

Or there is no info about cover when co-occupying a square so you assume no such thing exists. *shrug* Like when picking a valedictorion from a class of C- and below students, this looks to me like the most desirable loser.

Personally it would make more sense to me that you just pick a side that you'll pass the enemy on and you are vulnerable from that side that one but not the other side that where the enemy is basically acting as a shield. But there simply is no RAW basis for that, and in fact it goes against the basic D&D combat concept of an atomic '5 square (it is treated as a space with a homogenous state, having no subdivisions within it).

 

[sullivan]

Another question: how does the testing work with the increased DC for addition enemies? You have to roll for each enemy but would it be

If for example you had three enemies' spaces you wanted to tumble through, would that be:
DC 25, DC 27, and DC 29
or
All three DC 29?

Depends on if you are feeling like a RatBDM? It is rather ambigous about that. I'd rule DC 25, 27, 29. But I think that's mostly appealing to my Shadowrun sensibilities. It also makes the accounting easier if the player hasn't decided yet how far to go (visibility at the start of the Tumble precludes knowing the ultimate end point) when starting out.

Note: I would also rule DC 25, 17, 19, 31 if you were tumbling through an square occupied square, then past two threatening opponents and finally through another occupied square. Basically I'd be treating the accumulating penalties for each check and then adding up the accumulated so far along with the relavent surface modifiers, worst choice among the squares for which I'm doing the check, in the second table.

I would also NOT require an extra DC 15+ Tumble check for an opponent I just passed through, I'd just use the same die result. Baring a DC adjustment for surface conditions more than 10 about those in which the enemy is, this means automatic success. Same thing if the PC declares before rolling the dice for a DC 15+ check that he will definately also use it (barring decapitation) for trying to move through the enemy. Saves a die roll or two, which is good.

But these are all pretty much soft house rules because I don't really see justification either way for any of the senarios.