Tumble and being prone [Archive] - Wizards Community

Tumble and being prone [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gospodin_I
11-07-07, 05:30 PM Hey everybody.

I'm sure this has been discussed many times (I've seen FAQ's and board archives) but here's a quick question about tumbling when you're prone.

The rules state that all movement you can do while being prone is a 5-ft craw which provokes AOO. The description of the "Tumble" skill says you can tumble "at half speed as part of movement" and also that "by accepting a -10 penalty to your roll you can tumble at full speed".

Since you cannot divide by 2 your 5-ft crawl I think it's reasonable that a character can crawl 5-ft without provoking an AOO with a DC=25 tumble check.

However, the description of the skill also states that it is a "move action" which, if looking at RAW allows you to use tumble for "move actions" other than movement (I'm simply exploiting the wording here). Moreover, a variant use of the Tumble skill, given in the CAdv states that you can stand up from prone as a free action provoking AOO with a DC=35 Tumble check which makes it clear that Tumbling can be used for standing up.

Therefore I decided that Tumbling can be used to stand up from prone without provoking an AOO just that by taking a full move action (since standing up cannot be split) you still need to take the -10 penalty for accelerated tumbling. However, in order to make a difference between crawling 5-ft away and standing up (because according to this reasoning they should both have a DC=25) I decided to introduce a houserule for my campaign as follows:

You can crawl 5-ft when being prone without provoking an AOO with a DC=20 Tumble check
You can stand up from prone without provoking an AOO with a DC=25 Tumble check

*Note: In some of the things I looked at it said DC=20 for tumbling while crawling 5-ft., maybe they were from 3.0 - I don't know - but I decided to use it anyways.

Please tell me what do you think about this ruling. Do you think it breaks the balance? I'm concerned because some of my players are relying heavily on tripping and grappling and especially against small creatures this is proving very useful and grants them big advantages.
Orenmir
11-07-07, 06:22 PM Why do you need to change the rules? I think they are fine as written. Just because your players are doing a lot of tripping doesn't mean you should change the rules concerning prone and tumble.

If your players have spent feats, abilities, and skill ranks on being good trippers, that means they should be weak in some other area(s).

If you're worried about your monsters getting up from prone, make them harder to trip. Choose 4 legged monsters, or large-sized, or more strength.

Changing the game mechanics is very risky business. Don't give your players a chink in your DM armor to exploit.
Garonak
11-08-07, 04:07 AM Changing the rules seems unneccesary.
I had a Maug trip-monkey in my party, with his different bonuses he had no problem tripping a greater stone golem (Huge, 46 in str), so sending monsters that are difficult to trip can be difficult.
What you could look at is Complete Scoundrel, there are two skill tricks there that can be useful, Nimble Stand (lets you stand up from prone as a free action without provoking aoo) and another which lets stand up as a immediate action.
You could of course just send trippers and grapplers at the party, I had great fun with a Forest Giant Monk with a Guisarme (reach 30 and could attack adjacent (Monk)).
Marcus Majarra
11-08-07, 10:18 AM I had a Maug trip-monkey in my party, with his different bonuses he had no problem tripping a greater stone golem (Huge, 46 in str), so sending monsters that are difficult to trip can be difficult.
He must have been Large or powerfully built Medium to achieve this. On way to avoid tripping tactics is to simply send a monster two size categories larger than the tripper.
Orenmir
11-08-07, 10:32 AM You can also give your monsters the Prone Attack feat. Even if they get tripped, the can fight normally with no penalty (of course, it's a little tough to move when prone).
mvincent
11-08-07, 02:33 PM I think it's reasonable that a character can crawl 5-ft without provoking an AOO with a DC=25 tumble check.Agreed. From the 3.5 FAQ (if desired):
"I don’t think it stretches the rules unreasonably to
allow a character to use Tumble while crawling, but since you
can’t crawl at half speed (half of 5 feet is less than a full
square), you’d have to take the –10 penalty on the Tumble
check for using accelerated tumbling. Thus, a character could
make a “crawling Tumble”—think of it as an “action roll” if
you prefer—to move 5 feet as a move action without provoking
attacks of opportunity; such an action would require a DC 15
Tumble check with a –10 penalty."

Please tell me what do you think about this ruling.The house rule is not unreasonable nor unbalanced. However I personally avoid house-rules that contradict the core rule if they aren't really needed.

I'm concerned because some of my players are relying heavily on trippingAn option (that is supported by the Rules of the Game articles), is to have tripped opponents:
1) move from prone to kneeling as a move action that does not provoke, then
2) move from kneeling to standing as a move action that does not provoke.

This can even allow (if done over two rounds) a tripped opponent to stand without burning a standard action (or requiring tumbling).
1 ton ghost
11-08-07, 03:52 PM kip up (rise from prove via Tumble) is DC=35, Comp.Adv
i love the 2 move actions from prone to standing rule. nj that.
the Tumble during the crawl is nice too.

consider tanglefoot bagg'ing an enemy while they are prone. does that effectively glue them down, or just in place (just that square)?
Gospodin_I
11-08-07, 04:59 PM Wow, thanks fo all the feedback guys, it's really helpful!

Some comments:

On way to avoid tripping tactics is to simply send a monster two size categories larger than the tripper.

We're playing a Sharn-based campaign in which gnome and halfling NPC's play a serious part so...not really applicable and I actually want to keep the realism in the campaign.

The house rule is not unreasonable nor unbalanced. However I personally avoid house-rules that contradict the core rule if they aren't really needed.

This one actually does not contradict them. Here's why:

The PHB says you can tumble at full speed by adding 10 to the DC of the check;
Tumbling is introduced as rule for getting-up from prone in several books (PHB2, CAdv);
Nowhere in the core books, nor FAQ's, nor Errata does it state that "you cannot use tumble to stand up"

An option (that is supported by the Rules of the Game articles), is to have tripped opponents:
1) move from prone to kneeling as a move action that does not provoke, then
2) move from kneeling to standing as a move action that does not provoke.

This can even allow (if done over two rounds) a tripped opponent to stand without burning a standard action (or requiring tumbling).

I looked at this thread especially but I didn't see that ruling. Moreover, this is basically a full-round action to stand up without provoking AOO which doesn't make any sense so I'm not gonna use it - I think my houserule is much less unbalanced.

kip up (rise from prove via Tumble) is DC=35, Comp.Adv
the Tumble during the crawl is nice too.

You're mixing two things, both from CAdv:

Kip up is a class ability of the "Thief-acrobat" PrC which lets you stand up from prone as immediate action without provoking AOO. And you get it at first level which is like 6-7 character level at best - it's quite powerful
The additional ruling on tumbling in the "skills" section of the book. It says you can use a DC=35 Tumble check to stand up from prone as a swift action, however you still provoke AOO's!

End of comments

According to the RAW and my "logical" reasoning both crawling 5-ft and standing up should be DC=25 Tumble checks. However I think the latter is more useful than the former hence the difference in DC's
Garonak
11-10-07, 03:48 AM He must have been Large or powerfully built Medium to achieve this. On way to avoid tripping tactics is to simply send a monster two size categories larger than the tripper.

Yes, he was a Maug... a Large construct.
kuonji
11-10-07, 07:35 AM The additional ruling on tumbling in the "skills" section of the book. It says you can use a DC=35 Tumble check to stand up from prone as a swift action, however you still provoke AOO's!

Do swift actions even provoke AoOs? I thought they didn't, which was the point of the skill check being a swift action.
Marcus Majarra
11-10-07, 09:19 AM Do swift actions even provoke AoOs? I thought they didn't, which was the point of the skill check being a swift action.
Swift actions provoke AoOs as normal. An exception to this are quickened spells, which do not provoke AoOs.
kuonji
11-10-07, 10:12 AM Swift actions provoke AoOs as normal. An exception to this are quickened spells, which do not provoke AoOs.

Is there text on that somewhere. All I can find is the SRD text that states they are exactly like free actions except you are limited to 1 per round. The SRD says that almost all free actions do not provoke.
Marcus Majarra
11-10-07, 11:22 AM Actually, the SRD states that free actions rarely incur AoOs, not that they almost never do so. Your statement implies that, by default, free/swift/immediate actions do not provoke AoOs. This is not the case. Not that it matters anyway, since the Tumble check to get up as a free action explicitly states that it provokes AoOs.
Gospodin_I
11-10-07, 12:14 PM Anyways, back to my point.

Do you think it is reasonable to allow using tumble for getting up from prone? And by reasonable I mean that according to the RAW.
1 ton ghost
11-10-07, 01:17 PM Anyways, back to my point.

Do you think it is reasonable to allow using tumble for getting up from prone? And by reasonable I mean that according to the RAW.

sure, why not? if mean, if you can hit 35, more power to you, but yeah, you're drawing an AoO regardless. the alternative is basically giving up your entire round to burn 2 Move Actions to rise from prone safely. a fair trade overall given the dynamic under mobility's aegis of defense vs. offense.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gospodin_I 11-07-07, 05:30 PM	Hey everybody. I'm sure this has been discussed many times (I've seen FAQ's and board archives) but here's a quick question about tumbling when you're prone. The rules state that all movement you can do while being prone is a 5-ft craw which provokes AOO. The description of the "Tumble" skill says you can tumble "at half speed as part of movement" and also that "by accepting a -10 penalty to your roll you can tumble at full speed". Since you cannot divide by 2 your 5-ft crawl I think it's reasonable that a character can crawl 5-ft without provoking an AOO with a DC=25 tumble check. However, the description of the skill also states that it is a "move action" which, if looking at RAW allows you to use tumble for "move actions" other than movement (I'm simply exploiting the wording here). Moreover, a variant use of the Tumble skill, given in the CAdv states that you can stand up from prone as a free action provoking AOO with a DC=35 Tumble check which makes it clear that Tumbling can be used for standing up. Therefore I decided that Tumbling can be used to stand up from prone without provoking an AOO just that by taking a full move action (since standing up cannot be split) you still need to take the -10 penalty for accelerated tumbling. However, in order to make a difference between crawling 5-ft away and standing up (because according to this reasoning they should both have a DC=25) I decided to introduce a houserule for my campaign as follows: You can crawl 5-ft when being prone without provoking an AOO with a DC=20 Tumble check You can stand up from prone without provoking an AOO with a DC=25 Tumble check *Note: In some of the things I looked at it said DC=20 for tumbling while crawling 5-ft., maybe they were from 3.0 - I don't know - but I decided to use it anyways. Please tell me what do you think about this ruling. Do you think it breaks the balance? I'm concerned because some of my players are relying heavily on tripping and grappling and especially against small creatures this is proving very useful and grants them big advantages.
Orenmir 11-07-07, 06:22 PM	Why do you need to change the rules? I think they are fine as written. Just because your players are doing a lot of tripping doesn't mean you should change the rules concerning prone and tumble. If your players have spent feats, abilities, and skill ranks on being good trippers, that means they should be weak in some other area(s). If you're worried about your monsters getting up from prone, make them harder to trip. Choose 4 legged monsters, or large-sized, or more strength. Changing the game mechanics is very risky business. Don't give your players a chink in your DM armor to exploit.
Garonak 11-08-07, 04:07 AM	Changing the rules seems unneccesary. I had a Maug trip-monkey in my party, with his different bonuses he had no problem tripping a greater stone golem (Huge, 46 in str), so sending monsters that are difficult to trip can be difficult. What you could look at is Complete Scoundrel, there are two skill tricks there that can be useful, Nimble Stand (lets you stand up from prone as a free action without provoking aoo) and another which lets stand up as a immediate action. You could of course just send trippers and grapplers at the party, I had great fun with a Forest Giant Monk with a Guisarme (reach 30 and could attack adjacent (Monk)).
Marcus Majarra 11-08-07, 10:18 AM	I had a Maug trip-monkey in my party, with his different bonuses he had no problem tripping a greater stone golem (Huge, 46 in str), so sending monsters that are difficult to trip can be difficult. He must have been Large or powerfully built Medium to achieve this. On way to avoid tripping tactics is to simply send a monster two size categories larger than the tripper.
Orenmir 11-08-07, 10:32 AM	You can also give your monsters the Prone Attack feat. Even if they get tripped, the can fight normally with no penalty (of course, it's a little tough to move when prone).
mvincent 11-08-07, 02:33 PM	I think it's reasonable that a character can crawl 5-ft without provoking an AOO with a DC=25 tumble check.Agreed. From the 3.5 FAQ (if desired): "I don’t think it stretches the rules unreasonably to allow a character to use Tumble while crawling, but since you can’t crawl at half speed (half of 5 feet is less than a full square), you’d have to take the –10 penalty on the Tumble check for using accelerated tumbling. Thus, a character could make a “crawling Tumble”—think of it as an “action roll” if you prefer—to move 5 feet as a move action without provoking attacks of opportunity; such an action would require a DC 15 Tumble check with a –10 penalty." Please tell me what do you think about this ruling.The house rule is not unreasonable nor unbalanced. However I personally avoid house-rules that contradict the core rule if they aren't really needed. I'm concerned because some of my players are relying heavily on trippingAn option (that is supported by the Rules of the Game articles), is to have tripped opponents: 1) move from prone to kneeling as a move action that does not provoke, then 2) move from kneeling to standing as a move action that does not provoke. This can even allow (if done over two rounds) a tripped opponent to stand without burning a standard action (or requiring tumbling).
1 ton ghost 11-08-07, 03:52 PM	kip up (rise from prove via Tumble) is DC=35, Comp.Adv i love the 2 move actions from prone to standing rule. nj that. the Tumble during the crawl is nice too. consider tanglefoot bagg'ing an enemy while they are prone. does that effectively glue them down, or just in place (just that square)?
Gospodin_I 11-08-07, 04:59 PM	Wow, thanks fo all the feedback guys, it's really helpful! Some comments: On way to avoid tripping tactics is to simply send a monster two size categories larger than the tripper. We're playing a Sharn-based campaign in which gnome and halfling NPC's play a serious part so...not really applicable and I actually want to keep the realism in the campaign. The house rule is not unreasonable nor unbalanced. However I personally avoid house-rules that contradict the core rule if they aren't really needed. This one actually does not contradict them. Here's why: The PHB says you can tumble at full speed by adding 10 to the DC of the check; Tumbling is introduced as rule for getting-up from prone in several books (PHB2, CAdv); Nowhere in the core books, nor FAQ's, nor Errata does it state that "you cannot use tumble to stand up" An option (that is supported by the Rules of the Game articles), is to have tripped opponents: 1) move from prone to kneeling as a move action that does not provoke, then 2) move from kneeling to standing as a move action that does not provoke. This can even allow (if done over two rounds) a tripped opponent to stand without burning a standard action (or requiring tumbling). I looked at this thread especially but I didn't see that ruling. Moreover, this is basically a full-round action to stand up without provoking AOO which doesn't make any sense so I'm not gonna use it - I think my houserule is much less unbalanced. kip up (rise from prove via Tumble) is DC=35, Comp.Adv the Tumble during the crawl is nice too. You're mixing two things, both from CAdv: Kip up is a class ability of the "Thief-acrobat" PrC which lets you stand up from prone as immediate action without provoking AOO. And you get it at first level which is like 6-7 character level at best - it's quite powerful The additional ruling on tumbling in the "skills" section of the book. It says you can use a DC=35 Tumble check to stand up from prone as a swift action, however you still provoke AOO's! End of comments According to the RAW and my "logical" reasoning both crawling 5-ft and standing up should be DC=25 Tumble checks. However I think the latter is more useful than the former hence the difference in DC's
Garonak 11-10-07, 03:48 AM	He must have been Large or powerfully built Medium to achieve this. On way to avoid tripping tactics is to simply send a monster two size categories larger than the tripper. Yes, he was a Maug... a Large construct.
kuonji 11-10-07, 07:35 AM	The additional ruling on tumbling in the "skills" section of the book. It says you can use a DC=35 Tumble check to stand up from prone as a swift action, however you still provoke AOO's! Do swift actions even provoke AoOs? I thought they didn't, which was the point of the skill check being a swift action.
Marcus Majarra 11-10-07, 09:19 AM	Do swift actions even provoke AoOs? I thought they didn't, which was the point of the skill check being a swift action. Swift actions provoke AoOs as normal. An exception to this are quickened spells, which do not provoke AoOs.
kuonji 11-10-07, 10:12 AM	Swift actions provoke AoOs as normal. An exception to this are quickened spells, which do not provoke AoOs. Is there text on that somewhere. All I can find is the SRD text that states they are exactly like free actions except you are limited to 1 per round. The SRD says that almost all free actions do not provoke.
Marcus Majarra 11-10-07, 11:22 AM	Actually, the SRD states that free actions rarely incur AoOs, not that they almost never do so. Your statement implies that, by default, free/swift/immediate actions do not provoke AoOs. This is not the case. Not that it matters anyway, since the Tumble check to get up as a free action explicitly states that it provokes AoOs.
Gospodin_I 11-10-07, 12:14 PM	Anyways, back to my point. Do you think it is reasonable to allow using tumble for getting up from prone? And by reasonable I mean that according to the RAW.
1 ton ghost 11-10-07, 01:17 PM	Anyways, back to my point. Do you think it is reasonable to allow using tumble for getting up from prone? And by reasonable I mean that according to the RAW. sure, why not? if mean, if you can hit 35, more power to you, but yeah, you're drawing an AoO regardless. the alternative is basically giving up your entire round to burn 2 Move Actions to rise from prone safely. a fair trade overall given the dynamic under mobility's aegis of defense vs. offense.