Attack of Opportunity? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Attack of Opportunity? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
gamerdork
11-11-07, 01:21 AM Here is the situation: Archie the Archer is wielding a longbow and has a move of 40'. Solly the Soldier is wielding a sword and is currently in the square next to Archie, thus threatening Archie.

Archie uses a Move action to attempt a DC 15 Tumble check and succeeds, moving directly away from Solly so he ends up 6 squares from Solly. Archie then uses a Standard action to fire an arrow at Solly.

The question: Does Solly get an Attack of Opportunity on Archie? Whether you feel YES or NO, can you please write a brief explanation of your answer.

Thanks!
- gamerdork

SPOILER OF SORTS, PLEASE READ *AFTER* ANSWERING THE QUESTION ABOVE BY HIGH-LIGHTING THE AREA HERE --> My DM told me that yes, Solly takes an AO on Archie because Archie is taking a Standard action after the Move (tumble) action. I am very confused and sad about this, because I cannot see how this is possibly correct. I am trying to get my DMs brief explanation in writing so I can post it here so everyone can see both sides to this debate. btw, obviously I am the player of Archie.
KillerGM
11-11-07, 01:23 AM No, that's the whole point of the Tumble skill.

Also, characters cannot take AoOs against people if they don't threaten - Archie, being 6 squares away, would be out of Solly's threatened areas when he fires his bow.
kuonji
11-11-07, 01:28 AM KillerGM is correct, there's no AoO against the archer.

Not to nitpick your example, but with a tumble you only move 1/2 speed, unless you take a penalty on the roll to move full speed, so you'd end up 4 not 6 squares away, but the premise is still valid.
gamerdork
11-11-07, 01:31 AM Remember, Archie's move is 40'.

We play that a tumbler only pays double for the threatened square(s) he is moving through. So with a 40' move and only 1 threatened square, he could end up 7 squares away from his starting point. Perhaps we are playing that wrong, but in everything we could find, nothing indicates that the ENTIRE tubmling move must be at 1/2 speed.
kuonji
11-11-07, 02:21 AM From the SRD on Tumble skill:
DC15 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.

There's the relevant text.
calronmoonflower
11-11-07, 02:32 AM Only if the fighter had some way of making a melee attack 30 feet away.

Remember that you can threaten squares in which you can make a melee attack.

The rule for this are on page 137 of the Player's Handbook under the Threated Squares: part of the text.
Nom
11-11-07, 06:48 AM It's possible that your DM is stuck in a 3.0 mode of thinking. 3.0 had retrospective AoOs depending on what you did after your move action. 3.5 realised that was silly and made a special Withdraw action to move without AoOs.

Thus, you evaluate the AoO based on what is happening right now. What's happening right now is move via Tumble. If the Tumble check is successful, then no AoO. What happens after the archer is out of range is irrelevant unless they are still threatened (by someone else).
StevenO
11-11-07, 07:37 PM Tumbling movement avoided the AoO and if it only uses a move action your standard action is still available to attack with.

Depending on the situation the archer could simply use the free 5' adjustment to move away from soldier (only taking a 5' step does NOT draw an AoO) and then make a FULL ATTACK. Of course the response is the soldier takes a 5' step to "base" you again and returns the favor.
mvincent
11-13-07, 02:23 PM My DM told me that yes, Solly takes an AO on ArchieYour DM is incorrect... but hey, all of us make mistakes or misinterpretations in the rules... it's an expected part of game by now. No harm. Tell him about the thread, and if he needs more supporting information (which he hopefully shouldn't) then we'll be happy to supply it.
PenderGrass
11-14-07, 04:08 PM Your DM is incorrect... but hey, all of us make mistakes or misinterpretations in the rules... it's an expected part of game by now. No harm. Tell him about the thread, and if he needs more supporting information (which he hopefully shouldn't) then we'll be happy to supply it.
Unless the DM is using a house rule.

:dragon:
*****
Finarin Panjoro
11-14-07, 04:30 PM The answer is no if the archer succeeds on the tumble check. The archer could also take a 5 foot step away from Solly and shoot him without provoking an Attack of Opportunity. Tumbling is actually riskier than this second option.
Toki_Wartooth
11-14-07, 04:42 PM Unless the DM is using a house rule.House rules are a (preferably unstated) caveat to *any* rules discussion. Since the OP made no mention of a house-rule, it can be assumed that even if the DM had a house-rule one on this (unlikely, as it would serve little purpose) it was not made clear to the OP.

btw: your sig is not in the generally accepted location for sigs (and is thus annoying to those that have sigs turned off).
thaylok
11-14-07, 05:03 PM Remember, technicality I guess, but you tumble at 1/2 speed. so to move 6 squares = 60' move ( 5' X 6 squares X 2 movement penalty = 60'). With a move of 40', he's double moved. So if he wanted to single move, he should have stopped earlier. Also, I'd increase the DC to be tumbling with weapons in hand, especially a bow.

Now, the tumble would move him out of the threatened range, that is the choice of the DM to allow it, even though it may not have been in the original intent of the skill, it is DM's call, IMHO. I have no problems allowing a PC to tumble everywhere, However, I would gladly induce a Constitution check based on dizziness.
PhaedrusXY
11-14-07, 05:11 PM Also, I'd increase the DC to be tumbling with weapons in hand, especially a bow.

Now, the tumble would move him out of the threatened range, that is the choice of the DM to allow it, even though it may not have been in the original intent of the skill, it is DM's call, IMHO. I have no problems allowing a PC to tumble everywhere, However, I would gladly induce a Constitution check based on dizziness.So basically you'd make up a bunch of rules on the spot, instead of using the ones laid out in the book? Ok, glad I don't play with you. If I wanted to free form roleplay, I would. I prefer D&D, where you generally use a set of rules mutally agreed upon before hand. I understand using house rules, and even coming up with ad hoc rules when necessary, but DMs that just make up stuff whenever they feel like it, whether it is really needed or not, are annoying. The rules cover this situation just fine as-is.

There is no attack of opportunity in the scenario described in the OP. The DM screwed up.
mvincent
11-14-07, 05:54 PM The archer could also take a 5 foot step away from Solly and shoot him without provoking an Attack of Opportunity. Tumbling is actually riskier than this second option.Well, tumbling would prevent the opponent from getting a full attack. Also, with a skill bonus of 14 or better, there is usually no chance to fail the tumbling roll.
calronmoonflower
11-15-07, 03:17 AM Remember, technicality I guess, but you tumble at 1/2 speed. so to move 6 squares = 60' move ( 5' X 6 squares X 2 movement penalty = 60'). With a move of 40', he's double moved. So if he wanted to single move, he should have stopped earlier. Also, I'd increase the DC to be tumbling with weapons in hand, especially a bow.

Tumble for 5 feet and use normal movement for the rest.
PenderGrass
11-15-07, 03:28 AM Tumble for 5 feet and use normal movement for the rest.
/lol

Exactly.

:dragon:
*****
kuonji
11-15-07, 03:47 AM Tumble for 5 feet and use normal movement for the rest.

Except you either tumble at 1/2 movement or you don't tumble. You could choose to tumble 5' and end your tumble, then take another move action and move normally, but then you wouldn't be attacking.
Finarin Panjoro
11-15-07, 10:31 AM Well, tumbling would prevent the opponent from getting a full attack. Also, with a skill bonus of 14 or better, there is usually no chance to fail the tumbling roll.
True, and well said.

kuonji, I don't believe that is true. The Tumble skill states that it is not an action but is part of normal movement. So you really only have to tumble through threatened squares (paying double cost for each square) and could use normal movement for the rest of your move. So with a speed of 30, in one round you could move 10', tumble through one threatened square (10' cost), move another 10' and take a standard action. In the case of the archer above he could tumble out of the threatened square (10'), move 20' more, and then take a standard action (fire an arrow).
PenderGrass
11-15-07, 12:24 PM Except you either tumble at 1/2 movement or you don't tumble. You could choose to tumble 5' and end your tumble, then take another move action and move normally, but then you wouldn't be attacking.
Just so we are clear:
Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action.
As quoted from the SRD, tumbling is part of a movement – it does not require an entire move action and is not considered to be an action in-and-of-itself. So, to accomplish the above proposed action, a character need only announce that he will tumble 5 feet and then complete that move action at his normal speed.

The 5 feet of tumble is done at half movement – or, it actually costs him 10 feet of his overall movement.

:dragon:
*****
weasel0
11-15-07, 12:52 PM And if so chose, could take the additional... +10? i believe to tumble at full speed and then it doesn't even matter how he takes care of the rest of the movement beacuse it's all at full speed. And then he takes his standard action to fire a ranged weapon(or perhaps cast a spell if we were to apply this to a caster).
kuonji
11-15-07, 02:14 PM Just so we are clear:

As quoted from the SRD, tumbling is part of a movement – it does not require an entire move action and is not considered to be an action in-and-of-itself. So, to accomplish the above proposed action, a character need only announce that he will tumble 5 feet and then complete that move action at his normal speed.

The 5 feet of tumble is done at half movement – or, it actually costs him 10 feet of his overall movement.

:dragon:
*****

Amusingly enough, by the FAQ, we are both right. The faq says you can do it either way, gg wotc.
mvincent
11-15-07, 02:18 PM Amusingly enough, by the FAQ, we are both right. The faq says you can do it either way, gg wotc.Yup. From the 3.5 FAQ:
"When a character tumbles (at half speed) during a
move action, does that mean he is moving at half speed for
the whole move, or just in the squares where tumbling?
Although it’s easiest to apply the half-speed penalty to the
entire move action, it’s not strictly necessary to do so.
If the player and DM can handle this additional level of
complexity, it’s perfectly okay to rule that you pay an extra
movement cost only for each square that you use Tumble to
exit without provoking an attack of opportunity (as well as for
each square of an enemy’s space that you enter using Tumble)."
PenderGrass
11-15-07, 02:22 PM I consider it about as complex as having variable terrain. You move across a room partially filled with debris, some stairs and an open, flat space.

Each "square" has its own movement cost.

If you can handle that, breaking a tumbling manuever into segments is just as simple.

:dragon:
*****
kuonji
11-15-07, 03:11 PM We prefer the 1/2 for all movement as it limits how far you can go on a tumble, plus it makes the ability to take a -10 penalty for full movement more meaningful. Not really a matter of complexity at all, as you said.
gamerdork
11-19-07, 01:29 PM Another player had also emailed a former Sage and gotten the same reply, that the AO is not allowed due to Archie tumbling out of the threatened square.

Also, wanted to mention that I prefer the double cost for tumbling ONLY through the actual threatened squares. 3.5 is such a tactical game anyway that I don't see why they didn't just use squares as a movement measure instead of feet. E.g., dwarves normally move 4, elves 6, etc.

This whole thing, even over a week later, has given me cause to quit playing D&D 3.5, and see what comes of 4.0... not sure yet, but the damn discussion wasting a half hour of game time was just so frustrating.

Well, game on!
- Corey
PenderGrass
11-19-07, 02:00 PM This whole thing, even over a week later, has given me cause to quit playing D&D 3.5
This is the worst thing to do, in my humble opinion.

:dragon:
*****
Sinis
11-19-07, 03:15 PM No, Solly does not get an Attack of Opportunity.

If he did, what is the purpose of the tumble skill?
In your situation, you only provoke an attack of opportunity when you move, and tumbling specifically exempts you from it. End of story.
pmurray@bigpond.com
11-20-07, 09:04 PM Remember, Archie's move is 40'.

We play that a tumbler only pays double for the threatened square(s) he is moving through.

Agreed. Tumbling is done as part of a normal move. It's perfectly reasonable to move, move, tumble, move through 4 squares.

As to the OP - no AAO. That's the whole point. You normally take an AAO when moving out of a threatened square, unless you tumble. If you are out of threat range when taking an action, then you are out of threat range regardless of where you might have been earlier. Your DM's rule makes tumbling and possibly Spring Attack meaningless.
Ace_of_time
11-25-07, 01:18 AM I think everyone has covered this well. Just wanted to point out some things.

1. It Is 1/2 speed as part of a normal move, not 1/2 speed as a move action. These are two different things.

2. How does he know what the DC is? The DM could have imposed some minuses on him for something or increased the DC for some reason. If he was tumbleing from one of the corners he could have tumble through the solders threated squres which is a higher DC. (over , under or around) or the DM could have imposed a surface mod to the DC. What number did they think they made the DC by?

3. Maybe it was for something else besided moving?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
gamerdork 11-11-07, 01:21 AM	Here is the situation: Archie the Archer is wielding a longbow and has a move of 40'. Solly the Soldier is wielding a sword and is currently in the square next to Archie, thus threatening Archie. Archie uses a Move action to attempt a DC 15 Tumble check and succeeds, moving directly away from Solly so he ends up 6 squares from Solly. Archie then uses a Standard action to fire an arrow at Solly. The question: Does Solly get an Attack of Opportunity on Archie? Whether you feel YES or NO, can you please write a brief explanation of your answer. Thanks! - gamerdork SPOILER OF SORTS, PLEASE READ AFTER ANSWERING THE QUESTION ABOVE BY HIGH-LIGHTING THE AREA HERE --> My DM told me that yes, Solly takes an AO on Archie because Archie is taking a Standard action after the Move (tumble) action. I am very confused and sad about this, because I cannot see how this is possibly correct. I am trying to get my DMs brief explanation in writing so I can post it here so everyone can see both sides to this debate. btw, obviously I am the player of Archie.
KillerGM 11-11-07, 01:23 AM	No, that's the whole point of the Tumble skill. Also, characters cannot take AoOs against people if they don't threaten - Archie, being 6 squares away, would be out of Solly's threatened areas when he fires his bow.
kuonji 11-11-07, 01:28 AM	KillerGM is correct, there's no AoO against the archer. Not to nitpick your example, but with a tumble you only move 1/2 speed, unless you take a penalty on the roll to move full speed, so you'd end up 4 not 6 squares away, but the premise is still valid.
gamerdork 11-11-07, 01:31 AM	Remember, Archie's move is 40'. We play that a tumbler only pays double for the threatened square(s) he is moving through. So with a 40' move and only 1 threatened square, he could end up 7 squares away from his starting point. Perhaps we are playing that wrong, but in everything we could find, nothing indicates that the ENTIRE tubmling move must be at 1/2 speed.
kuonji 11-11-07, 02:21 AM	From the SRD on Tumble skill: DC15 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. There's the relevant text.
calronmoonflower 11-11-07, 02:32 AM	Only if the fighter had some way of making a melee attack 30 feet away. Remember that you can threaten squares in which you can make a melee attack. The rule for this are on page 137 of the Player's Handbook under the Threated Squares: part of the text.
Nom 11-11-07, 06:48 AM	It's possible that your DM is stuck in a 3.0 mode of thinking. 3.0 had retrospective AoOs depending on what you did after your move action. 3.5 realised that was silly and made a special Withdraw action to move without AoOs. Thus, you evaluate the AoO based on what is happening right now. What's happening right now is move via Tumble. If the Tumble check is successful, then no AoO. What happens after the archer is out of range is irrelevant unless they are still threatened (by someone else).
StevenO 11-11-07, 07:37 PM	Tumbling movement avoided the AoO and if it only uses a move action your standard action is still available to attack with. Depending on the situation the archer could simply use the free 5' adjustment to move away from soldier (only taking a 5' step does NOT draw an AoO) and then make a FULL ATTACK. Of course the response is the soldier takes a 5' step to "base" you again and returns the favor.
mvincent 11-13-07, 02:23 PM	My DM told me that yes, Solly takes an AO on ArchieYour DM is incorrect... but hey, all of us make mistakes or misinterpretations in the rules... it's an expected part of game by now. No harm. Tell him about the thread, and if he needs more supporting information (which he hopefully shouldn't) then we'll be happy to supply it.
PenderGrass 11-14-07, 04:08 PM	Your DM is incorrect... but hey, all of us make mistakes or misinterpretations in the rules... it's an expected part of game by now. No harm. Tell him about the thread, and if he needs more supporting information (which he hopefully shouldn't) then we'll be happy to supply it. Unless the DM is using a house rule. :dragon: *****
Finarin Panjoro 11-14-07, 04:30 PM	The answer is no if the archer succeeds on the tumble check. The archer could also take a 5 foot step away from Solly and shoot him without provoking an Attack of Opportunity. Tumbling is actually riskier than this second option.
Toki_Wartooth 11-14-07, 04:42 PM	Unless the DM is using a house rule.House rules are a (preferably unstated) caveat to any rules discussion. Since the OP made no mention of a house-rule, it can be assumed that even if the DM had a house-rule one on this (unlikely, as it would serve little purpose) it was not made clear to the OP. btw: your sig is not in the generally accepted location for sigs (and is thus annoying to those that have sigs turned off).
thaylok 11-14-07, 05:03 PM	Remember, technicality I guess, but you tumble at 1/2 speed. so to move 6 squares = 60' move ( 5' X 6 squares X 2 movement penalty = 60'). With a move of 40', he's double moved. So if he wanted to single move, he should have stopped earlier. Also, I'd increase the DC to be tumbling with weapons in hand, especially a bow. Now, the tumble would move him out of the threatened range, that is the choice of the DM to allow it, even though it may not have been in the original intent of the skill, it is DM's call, IMHO. I have no problems allowing a PC to tumble everywhere, However, I would gladly induce a Constitution check based on dizziness.
PhaedrusXY 11-14-07, 05:11 PM	Also, I'd increase the DC to be tumbling with weapons in hand, especially a bow. Now, the tumble would move him out of the threatened range, that is the choice of the DM to allow it, even though it may not have been in the original intent of the skill, it is DM's call, IMHO. I have no problems allowing a PC to tumble everywhere, However, I would gladly induce a Constitution check based on dizziness.So basically you'd make up a bunch of rules on the spot, instead of using the ones laid out in the book? Ok, glad I don't play with you. If I wanted to free form roleplay, I would. I prefer D&D, where you generally use a set of rules mutally agreed upon before hand. I understand using house rules, and even coming up with ad hoc rules when necessary, but DMs that just make up stuff whenever they feel like it, whether it is really needed or not, are annoying. The rules cover this situation just fine as-is. There is no attack of opportunity in the scenario described in the OP. The DM screwed up.
mvincent 11-14-07, 05:54 PM	The archer could also take a 5 foot step away from Solly and shoot him without provoking an Attack of Opportunity. Tumbling is actually riskier than this second option.Well, tumbling would prevent the opponent from getting a full attack. Also, with a skill bonus of 14 or better, there is usually no chance to fail the tumbling roll.
calronmoonflower 11-15-07, 03:17 AM	Remember, technicality I guess, but you tumble at 1/2 speed. so to move 6 squares = 60' move ( 5' X 6 squares X 2 movement penalty = 60'). With a move of 40', he's double moved. So if he wanted to single move, he should have stopped earlier. Also, I'd increase the DC to be tumbling with weapons in hand, especially a bow. Tumble for 5 feet and use normal movement for the rest.
PenderGrass 11-15-07, 03:28 AM	Tumble for 5 feet and use normal movement for the rest. /lol Exactly. :dragon: *****
kuonji 11-15-07, 03:47 AM	Tumble for 5 feet and use normal movement for the rest. Except you either tumble at 1/2 movement or you don't tumble. You could choose to tumble 5' and end your tumble, then take another move action and move normally, but then you wouldn't be attacking.
Finarin Panjoro 11-15-07, 10:31 AM	Well, tumbling would prevent the opponent from getting a full attack. Also, with a skill bonus of 14 or better, there is usually no chance to fail the tumbling roll. True, and well said. kuonji, I don't believe that is true. The Tumble skill states that it is not an action but is part of normal movement. So you really only have to tumble through threatened squares (paying double cost for each square) and could use normal movement for the rest of your move. So with a speed of 30, in one round you could move 10', tumble through one threatened square (10' cost), move another 10' and take a standard action. In the case of the archer above he could tumble out of the threatened square (10'), move 20' more, and then take a standard action (fire an arrow).
PenderGrass 11-15-07, 12:24 PM	Except you either tumble at 1/2 movement or you don't tumble. You could choose to tumble 5' and end your tumble, then take another move action and move normally, but then you wouldn't be attacking. Just so we are clear: Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. As quoted from the SRD, tumbling is part of a movement – it does not require an entire move action and is not considered to be an action in-and-of-itself. So, to accomplish the above proposed action, a character need only announce that he will tumble 5 feet and then complete that move action at his normal speed. The 5 feet of tumble is done at half movement – or, it actually costs him 10 feet of his overall movement. :dragon: *****
weasel0 11-15-07, 12:52 PM	And if so chose, could take the additional... +10? i believe to tumble at full speed and then it doesn't even matter how he takes care of the rest of the movement beacuse it's all at full speed. And then he takes his standard action to fire a ranged weapon(or perhaps cast a spell if we were to apply this to a caster).
kuonji 11-15-07, 02:14 PM	Just so we are clear: As quoted from the SRD, tumbling is part of a movement – it does not require an entire move action and is not considered to be an action in-and-of-itself. So, to accomplish the above proposed action, a character need only announce that he will tumble 5 feet and then complete that move action at his normal speed. The 5 feet of tumble is done at half movement – or, it actually costs him 10 feet of his overall movement. :dragon: ***** Amusingly enough, by the FAQ, we are both right. The faq says you can do it either way, gg wotc.
mvincent 11-15-07, 02:18 PM	Amusingly enough, by the FAQ, we are both right. The faq says you can do it either way, gg wotc.Yup. From the 3.5 FAQ: "When a character tumbles (at half speed) during a move action, does that mean he is moving at half speed for the whole move, or just in the squares where tumbling? Although it’s easiest to apply the half-speed penalty to the entire move action, it’s not strictly necessary to do so. If the player and DM can handle this additional level of complexity, it’s perfectly okay to rule that you pay an extra movement cost only for each square that you use Tumble to exit without provoking an attack of opportunity (as well as for each square of an enemy’s space that you enter using Tumble)."
PenderGrass 11-15-07, 02:22 PM	I consider it about as complex as having variable terrain. You move across a room partially filled with debris, some stairs and an open, flat space. Each "square" has its own movement cost. If you can handle that, breaking a tumbling manuever into segments is just as simple. :dragon: *****
kuonji 11-15-07, 03:11 PM	We prefer the 1/2 for all movement as it limits how far you can go on a tumble, plus it makes the ability to take a -10 penalty for full movement more meaningful. Not really a matter of complexity at all, as you said.
gamerdork 11-19-07, 01:29 PM	Another player had also emailed a former Sage and gotten the same reply, that the AO is not allowed due to Archie tumbling out of the threatened square. Also, wanted to mention that I prefer the double cost for tumbling ONLY through the actual threatened squares. 3.5 is such a tactical game anyway that I don't see why they didn't just use squares as a movement measure instead of feet. E.g., dwarves normally move 4, elves 6, etc. This whole thing, even over a week later, has given me cause to quit playing D&D 3.5, and see what comes of 4.0... not sure yet, but the damn discussion wasting a half hour of game time was just so frustrating. Well, game on! - Corey
PenderGrass 11-19-07, 02:00 PM	This whole thing, even over a week later, has given me cause to quit playing D&D 3.5 This is the worst thing to do, in my humble opinion. :dragon: *****
Sinis 11-19-07, 03:15 PM	No, Solly does not get an Attack of Opportunity. If he did, what is the purpose of the tumble skill? In your situation, you only provoke an attack of opportunity when you move, and tumbling specifically exempts you from it. End of story.
pmurray@bigpond.com 11-20-07, 09:04 PM	Remember, Archie's move is 40'. We play that a tumbler only pays double for the threatened square(s) he is moving through. Agreed. Tumbling is done as part of a normal move. It's perfectly reasonable to move, move, tumble, move through 4 squares. As to the OP - no AAO. That's the whole point. You normally take an AAO when moving out of a threatened square, unless you tumble. If you are out of threat range when taking an action, then you are out of threat range regardless of where you might have been earlier. Your DM's rule makes tumbling and possibly Spring Attack meaningless.
Ace_of_time 11-25-07, 01:18 AM	I think everyone has covered this well. Just wanted to point out some things. 1. It Is 1/2 speed as part of a normal move, not 1/2 speed as a move action. These are two different things. 2. How does he know what the DC is? The DM could have imposed some minuses on him for something or increased the DC for some reason. If he was tumbleing from one of the corners he could have tumble through the solders threated squres which is a higher DC. (over , under or around) or the DM could have imposed a surface mod to the DC. What number did they think they made the DC by? 3. Maybe it was for something else besided moving?