New FAQ 21.Dec [Archive] - Wizards Community

New FAQ 21.Dec [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Britt
12-21-06, 05:41 PM There's a new FAQ up, but I can't seem to access it. Can anyone else see it and, if so, fill me in on the updates?
copper_wyrmling
12-21-06, 05:53 PM I just opened it with no problems, Britt.

Some good clarifications in this one (which I've seen debated on LG lists):
- You can't take 20 on Hide checks (or other opposed checks such as Use Rope to tie someone up).
- It's legitimate to only tumble (and take half movement) in squares which are actually threatened, you don't need to take the penalty for your full move. (And yes, I HAVE seen this one ruled differently.)
- If you're nonproficient with armor, you just add the armor check penalty to a wider list of skills, you don't add double the armor check penalty to the normally penalized skills.

Plus a bit of stuff on duskblades, martial adepts and reserve feats - and some really obvious restatements of stuff that was already covered in the rules (sudden strike and skirmish are precision damage, how to handle a multiclass PC taking skills that are only class skills for one of his classes).

Hope that helps!
Britt
12-21-06, 07:26 PM Thanks, I was finally able to look at it. I didn't see anything too shocking, though some of what I was hoping for wasn't there :( Oh well.
copper_wyrmling
12-21-06, 07:46 PM I heard there was a ruling on Arcane Thesis (from PHB2) in the latest Dragon magazine, and was hoping that might make it in, but evidently not yet. I'll keep hoping...
GenghisBob
12-22-06, 10:20 PM - It's legitimate to only tumble (and take half movement) in squares which are actually threatened, you don't need to take the penalty for your full move. (And yes, I HAVE seen this one ruled differently

Im glad this was clariified. I have had it ruled the other way more times then not.
Samwise
12-22-06, 11:13 PM Let's note that the way that Tumble entry is worded, it is yet another end run rules revision, this time without even bothering to make it clear that this is a new optional rule.

"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)."

By this rather hesitant wording, if a DM doesn't feel he can handle the additional level complexity, it is perfectly okay for him to rule you must pay the extra movement for every square.
It hasn't been clarified at all, merely opened up fully for table variation.
copper_wyrmling
12-22-06, 11:20 PM Let's note that the way that Tumble entry is worded, it is yet another end run rules revision, this time without even bothering to make it clear that this is a new optional rule.

"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)."

By this rather hesitant wording, if a DM doesn't feel he can handle the additional level complexity, it is perfectly okay for him to rule you must pay the extra movement for every square.
It hasn't been clarified at all, merely opened up fully for table variation.

But it does make it clear that there's no rule saying you take the penalty for your whole move - that running it that way is merely a convenient shorthand that saves time, not a key part of the tumble rules (much like the shortcut of rolling initiative for all the bad guys at once).

Most GMs I've played with, if told, "The FAQ says that it's fine to do it this way but it introduces extra complexity, and I'm more than happy to figure out my tumble line and count out the squares so you can see", would be fine with it. The table variation I'd had before stemmed from people honestly believing that the tumble rules required that you move at half speed for your entire movement. I don't really like the wishy-washy wording in the FAQ either, but I think it's removed the main source of the table variation that I personally saw. YMMV.
Arvagor
12-22-06, 11:29 PM By this rather hesitant wording, if a DM doesn't feel he can handle the additional level complexity, it is perfectly okay for him to rule you must pay the extra movement for every square.Which is why I enjoy playing my Thief-Acrobat :rofl: -- no paying double for tumbling! ;)

(FWIW, I've also always been in the camp of only paying twice for the squares that are actually threatened, since the rule states, "Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement" -- I've never seen that doing so is overly complex, any more than counting squares twice when travelling in/through difficult terrain...)
Samwise
12-22-06, 11:31 PM But it does make it clear that there's no rule saying you take the penalty for your whole move - that running it that way is merely a convenient shorthand that saves time, not a key part of the tumble rules (much like the shortcut of rolling initiative for all the bad guys at once).

I forgot to include this.
Actually, there is. The entry for Tumble reads:
15 Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.

Not at double the cost of each square, at one-half speed. The rules for moving through difficult terrain don't say you move at a lower speed through them, they say they cost more to enter. That is two completely different effects.
There is also a new feat in Cityscape that pretty much supports this:
Swift Tumbler
Benefit: When tumbling, you move at a speed equal to half your base speed +10 feet.

How would you calculate that if you were just doubling the cost of select squares? You would actually move slower using Andy's new variant rule with this feat than you would otherwise, as you would always have to halve your movement, then pay double cost for only a few squares.

No, this FAQ entry is a new rule, that makes a newly released feat useless, and introduces confusion into the otherwise reasonably direct text of the rule.
Randall Montgomery
12-23-06, 10:48 AM I forgot to include this.
Actually, there is. The entry for Tumble reads:
15 Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.

Not at double the cost of each square, at one-half speed. The rules for moving through difficult terrain don't say you move at a lower speed through them, they say they cost more to enter. That is two completely different effects.
There is also a new feat in Cityscape that pretty much supports this:
Swift Tumbler
Benefit: When tumbling, you move at a speed equal to half your base speed +10 feet.

How would you calculate that if you were just doubling the cost of select squares? You would actually move slower using Andy's new variant rule with this feat than you would otherwise, as you would always have to halve your movement, then pay double cost for only a few squares.

No, this FAQ entry is a new rule, that makes a newly released feat useless, and introduces confusion into the otherwise reasonably direct text of the rule.

They're two different effects that have the same outcome. If a medium size character with 30' movement is trying to pass another medium character who is 5' away from him, his first square he moves at full speed, taking 1/12 of his total movement (we'll assume he's taking two move actions, giving him a total of 12 squares of movement). His second, third, and 4th square are all at half speed (giving him a total of 6 squares of movement), thus taking a total of 1/2 his current total movement (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 3/6 = 1/2). At this point, our character has used up 7/12 of his total movement ((1/2 = 6/12) + 1/12 = 7/12), and since he no longer needs to tumble past his opponent he can move at full speed again, allowing him to take the remaining 5/12 of his movement. In total, this character has moved 9 squares, or a total of 45'. If we do it instead so that movement cost in the tumbled squares is doubled, then he would pay 5' for the first square, 30' for the next three, and 25' for the last five. Since he only actually moved 15' in the threatened squares, we again come up with a total movement of 45'.

Under the rule that you must take a full move action to tumble, this character would have had to tumble during both move actions to get out of the threatened area, and would only have been able to move 30', quite a drastic reduction. Moral of the story, if it says you're moving at half speed, just double the cost to move out of the square. You'll end up with the same answer either way, and this way is much easier.

PS As far as the Swift Tumbler feat goes, 10' is two squares of movement. So, any character with this feat would not pay double cost for two squares of tumbling. In the above example, our character would be able to move at full speed in squares 1, 2, and 3, half speed in square 4, and then full speed again for the rest of his movement. Coincidentally, this would give him a total movement of 55', which is 10' more than without the feat. Hope this helps!
Samwise
12-23-06, 02:12 PM They're two different effects that have the same outcome.

Well, no they don't. The outcomes are quite different, particularly in regards to that feat, as you demonstrated quite clearly. If the feat can let you move further than you would if you didn't tumble at all, something is clearly wrong with allowing people to tumble only through specific squares.
Randall Montgomery
12-24-06, 09:22 AM Well, no they don't. The outcomes are quite different, particularly in regards to that feat, as you demonstrated quite clearly. If the feat can let you move further than you would if you didn't tumble at all, something is clearly wrong with allowing people to tumble only through specific squares.

This is incorrect. The feat dosen't let you move farther than you would if you didn't tumble, although it does let you move farther tumbling than if you didn't have it, which is the whole point of the feat. In my example, the character could move 60' without tumbling, taking an attack of opportunity. If the character had the Swift Tumbler feat, and tumbled only through threatened squares, he would move 55'. If he had the Swift Tumbler feat, and tumbled as the entirety of his move actions, he would move 50' (two 15' move actions, each with +10' movement). Finally, if he did not have the feat, and took his entire move actions tumbling, he would move 30'. In my example, I demonstrated two things:

1. You move A LOT farther when you only have to tumble through threatened squares, because you spend part of your action moving at full speed and only move at half speed when you're tumbling. The Swift Tumbler feat does nearly cancle this out, though.

2. The Swift Tumbler feat does exactly what it says it does under both conditions, giving the character an extra 10' of base speed while tumbling.

You could argue that the character in my example should get 20' of movement while tumbling, since he's taking two move action, but I would rule that since his total movement tumbling is only 15', he has only spent a single move action tumbling, and would only get an extra 10' of movement. I'll admit this is a grey area, but I'd vote for sticking to the side of caution.

If I had to guess the intent of the Cityscape writers, I'd say this feat is designed more towards PCs/NPCs who are trying to move through groups of opponents, and will therefore spend entire rounds tumbling. It's also much more effective for slower characters, since it would completely negate the tumbling penalty for any character with a 20' movement (halflings come to mind as an excellent race to take this feat).

PS Just for the sake of arguement, let's say that in my example you did give the character with the Swift Tumbler feat tumbling through only threatened squares two move actions worth of extra speed, or another 20' movement. He can still only use this while he's tumbling, which means that at best the character moves 60', the same as if he didn't tumble. In no situation does he ever move faster while tumbling than he would if he wasn't, as Samwise suggested (unless he was smaller than a small creature, but then why would he have to tumble anyway).
Samwise
12-24-06, 11:21 AM No, it let's you move further than someone who doesn't tumble at all.

If you have a 30 foot base movement and you don't tumble, you move 6 squares.
If you have a 30 foot base movement and tumble at half speed, you move 3 squares.
If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, and tumble at half speed, you move 5 squares.
If you have 30 foot base movement and pay double cost only when tumbling and tumble for 1 square, you move 4 squares.
If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, pay double cost only when tumbling, and tumble for 1 square, you can move 7 squares.

Only if you rewrite the feat so it only allows you to ignore the double cost for 2 potential squares of movement will you only reduce that to the person moving the same speed as someone who does not tumble. However, that requires the text of the feat to be completely rewritten, just as that Sage Advice entry rewrote the rule for tumbling, changing it from half speed to double cost.
Randall Montgomery
12-26-06, 02:46 PM No, it let's you move further than someone who doesn't tumble at all.

If you have a 30 foot base movement and you don't tumble, you move 6 squares.
If you have a 30 foot base movement and tumble at half speed, you move 3 squares.
If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, and tumble at half speed, you move 5 squares.
If you have 30 foot base movement and pay double cost only when tumbling and tumble for 1 square, you move 4 squares.
If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, pay double cost only when tumbling, and tumble for 1 square, you can move 7 squares.

I see where you're getting your numbers, but you didn't consider a major part of the feat, which specifies that you gain the bonus 10' to speed "while tumbling". Therefore, in your example, you would only gain the bonus movement in the 1 square where you're tumbling. Since 1 square is 1/6 of your movement while moving 30', and 1/5 of your movement while moving 25', your total movement in that instance would be (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 +1/6 + 1/5 = 5/30 + 5/30 + 5/30 + 5/30 + 6/30 = 26/30). Since you can't use partial movement, this means you can only move 25'. In fact, if you do the math, a person with a 30' base speed and the Swift Tumbler feat will always move 25' any move action where they tumble, regardless of how many squares they actually tumble in. So while I was incorrect in how to apply the Swift Tumbler feat, all the numbers from my previous example are actually correct (just lucky, I guess).
Samwise
12-27-06, 01:41 PM Well actually, they won't.

If you have a 30 foot base speed, don't have the feat, move half speed, and tumble for 3 squares, you move 3 squares.
If you have a 30 foot base speed, have the feet, move half speed, and tumble for 5 squares, you move 5 squares.
If you have a 30 foot base speed, have the feat, pay double cost for each square, and tumble for 5 squares, you only get to move 4 squares before running out of your 40 foot "tumbling speed."

So what your variable movement rate does is clip the speed with the feat.

I'm missing where this is "easier" or in accord with the written rules. If WotC wants to change the rules for tumbling then they should. But it should be issued as an errata, not a vaguely defined option in Sage Advice.
Randall Montgomery
12-27-06, 02:46 PM Well actually, they won't.

If you have a 30 foot base speed, have the feat, pay double cost for each square, and tumble for 5 squares, you only get to move 4 squares before running out of your 40 foot "tumbling speed."

So what your variable movement rate does is clip the speed with the feat.

This is part of the problem I've been trying to explain to you. With the Swift Tumbler feat, you never have a base speed of 40'. Your speed with the feat is either 30' while moving normally, or 25' while you're tumbling. And in this case, you wouldn't pay double cost for your squares, because you have your own set tumbling speed. Best to think of it as similar to a climb speed or a swim speed.

I'm missing where this is "easier" or in accord with the written rules. If WotC wants to change the rules for tumbling then they should. But it should be issued as an errata, not a vaguely defined option in Sage Advice.

It is easier, in every instance except where you're applying the Swift Tumbler feat to a character with a 30' base speed (or in cases with characters with speed enhancements, such as monks and barbarians). What can I say, you found the loophole in the system. ;)
Arinaad
12-27-06, 03:03 PM wow, you guys really know how to mince words and numbers. I know what you guys are talking about, I have a tumble monkey, but you are making it WAY too complicated to understand. I will try to simplify it:

Both will be medium characters with 30 ft. move, and double movement, all tumbling occuring in the first movement's range.

Option 1 (only tumbling when nescecary): Character moves full speed 60 ft. but tumbles 10 of it. total move=50ft. (first move=20 ft (10 regular, 10 tumble at half)
Adding the feat from Cityscape: total move=60ft.

Option 2 (full move, half-speed):character moves as far as possible, double move, tumbling 10 ft. total move=45ft (tumble first movement=15ft., normal movement 2nd move=30ft.)
Adding the feat from Cityscape: total move=55ft.

In conclusion, if you are only needing to tumble the portion of the move that occurs in threatened squares etc. you gain 5 whole feet of movement on a double move in these examples...

BUT if you look at acrobats like those in the circus, or martial artists who use tumbling in demonstrations they do not tumble for the entire length of their movement... it is impractical, and I belive that the spirit of the rule was not to obstruct characters from only tumbling for part of their move.

Arinaad
Samwise
12-27-06, 06:24 PM It is easier, in every instance except where you're applying the Swift Tumbler feat to a character with a 30' base speed (or in cases with characters with speed enhancements, such as monks and barbarians). What can I say, you found the loophole in the system. ;)

No, I just didn't try to create a new type of movement with a FAQ entry. Toss out that FAQ entry and there are no loopholes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Britt 12-21-06, 05:41 PM	There's a new FAQ up, but I can't seem to access it. Can anyone else see it and, if so, fill me in on the updates?
copper_wyrmling 12-21-06, 05:53 PM	I just opened it with no problems, Britt. Some good clarifications in this one (which I've seen debated on LG lists): - You can't take 20 on Hide checks (or other opposed checks such as Use Rope to tie someone up). - It's legitimate to only tumble (and take half movement) in squares which are actually threatened, you don't need to take the penalty for your full move. (And yes, I HAVE seen this one ruled differently.) - If you're nonproficient with armor, you just add the armor check penalty to a wider list of skills, you don't add double the armor check penalty to the normally penalized skills. Plus a bit of stuff on duskblades, martial adepts and reserve feats - and some really obvious restatements of stuff that was already covered in the rules (sudden strike and skirmish are precision damage, how to handle a multiclass PC taking skills that are only class skills for one of his classes). Hope that helps!
Britt 12-21-06, 07:26 PM	Thanks, I was finally able to look at it. I didn't see anything too shocking, though some of what I was hoping for wasn't there :( Oh well.
copper_wyrmling 12-21-06, 07:46 PM	I heard there was a ruling on Arcane Thesis (from PHB2) in the latest Dragon magazine, and was hoping that might make it in, but evidently not yet. I'll keep hoping...
GenghisBob 12-22-06, 10:20 PM	- It's legitimate to only tumble (and take half movement) in squares which are actually threatened, you don't need to take the penalty for your full move. (And yes, I HAVE seen this one ruled differently Im glad this was clariified. I have had it ruled the other way more times then not.
Samwise 12-22-06, 11:13 PM	Let's note that the way that Tumble entry is worded, it is yet another end run rules revision, this time without even bothering to make it clear that this is a new optional rule. "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)." By this rather hesitant wording, if a DM doesn't feel he can handle the additional level complexity, it is perfectly okay for him to rule you must pay the extra movement for every square. It hasn't been clarified at all, merely opened up fully for table variation.
copper_wyrmling 12-22-06, 11:20 PM	Let's note that the way that Tumble entry is worded, it is yet another end run rules revision, this time without even bothering to make it clear that this is a new optional rule. "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)." By this rather hesitant wording, if a DM doesn't feel he can handle the additional level complexity, it is perfectly okay for him to rule you must pay the extra movement for every square. It hasn't been clarified at all, merely opened up fully for table variation. But it does make it clear that there's no rule saying you take the penalty for your whole move - that running it that way is merely a convenient shorthand that saves time, not a key part of the tumble rules (much like the shortcut of rolling initiative for all the bad guys at once). Most GMs I've played with, if told, "The FAQ says that it's fine to do it this way but it introduces extra complexity, and I'm more than happy to figure out my tumble line and count out the squares so you can see", would be fine with it. The table variation I'd had before stemmed from people honestly believing that the tumble rules required that you move at half speed for your entire movement. I don't really like the wishy-washy wording in the FAQ either, but I think it's removed the main source of the table variation that I personally saw. YMMV.
Arvagor 12-22-06, 11:29 PM	By this rather hesitant wording, if a DM doesn't feel he can handle the additional level complexity, it is perfectly okay for him to rule you must pay the extra movement for every square.Which is why I enjoy playing my Thief-Acrobat :rofl: -- no paying double for tumbling! ;) (FWIW, I've also always been in the camp of only paying twice for the squares that are actually threatened, since the rule states, "Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement" -- I've never seen that doing so is overly complex, any more than counting squares twice when travelling in/through difficult terrain...)
Samwise 12-22-06, 11:31 PM	But it does make it clear that there's no rule saying you take the penalty for your whole move - that running it that way is merely a convenient shorthand that saves time, not a key part of the tumble rules (much like the shortcut of rolling initiative for all the bad guys at once). I forgot to include this. Actually, there is. The entry for Tumble reads: 15 Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Not at double the cost of each square, at one-half speed. The rules for moving through difficult terrain don't say you move at a lower speed through them, they say they cost more to enter. That is two completely different effects. There is also a new feat in Cityscape that pretty much supports this: Swift Tumbler Benefit: When tumbling, you move at a speed equal to half your base speed +10 feet. How would you calculate that if you were just doubling the cost of select squares? You would actually move slower using Andy's new variant rule with this feat than you would otherwise, as you would always have to halve your movement, then pay double cost for only a few squares. No, this FAQ entry is a new rule, that makes a newly released feat useless, and introduces confusion into the otherwise reasonably direct text of the rule.
Randall Montgomery 12-23-06, 10:48 AM	I forgot to include this. Actually, there is. The entry for Tumble reads: 15 Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Not at double the cost of each square, at one-half speed. The rules for moving through difficult terrain don't say you move at a lower speed through them, they say they cost more to enter. That is two completely different effects. There is also a new feat in Cityscape that pretty much supports this: Swift Tumbler Benefit: When tumbling, you move at a speed equal to half your base speed +10 feet. How would you calculate that if you were just doubling the cost of select squares? You would actually move slower using Andy's new variant rule with this feat than you would otherwise, as you would always have to halve your movement, then pay double cost for only a few squares. No, this FAQ entry is a new rule, that makes a newly released feat useless, and introduces confusion into the otherwise reasonably direct text of the rule. They're two different effects that have the same outcome. If a medium size character with 30' movement is trying to pass another medium character who is 5' away from him, his first square he moves at full speed, taking 1/12 of his total movement (we'll assume he's taking two move actions, giving him a total of 12 squares of movement). His second, third, and 4th square are all at half speed (giving him a total of 6 squares of movement), thus taking a total of 1/2 his current total movement (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 3/6 = 1/2). At this point, our character has used up 7/12 of his total movement ((1/2 = 6/12) + 1/12 = 7/12), and since he no longer needs to tumble past his opponent he can move at full speed again, allowing him to take the remaining 5/12 of his movement. In total, this character has moved 9 squares, or a total of 45'. If we do it instead so that movement cost in the tumbled squares is doubled, then he would pay 5' for the first square, 30' for the next three, and 25' for the last five. Since he only actually moved 15' in the threatened squares, we again come up with a total movement of 45'. Under the rule that you must take a full move action to tumble, this character would have had to tumble during both move actions to get out of the threatened area, and would only have been able to move 30', quite a drastic reduction. Moral of the story, if it says you're moving at half speed, just double the cost to move out of the square. You'll end up with the same answer either way, and this way is much easier. PS As far as the Swift Tumbler feat goes, 10' is two squares of movement. So, any character with this feat would not pay double cost for two squares of tumbling. In the above example, our character would be able to move at full speed in squares 1, 2, and 3, half speed in square 4, and then full speed again for the rest of his movement. Coincidentally, this would give him a total movement of 55', which is 10' more than without the feat. Hope this helps!
Samwise 12-23-06, 02:12 PM	They're two different effects that have the same outcome. Well, no they don't. The outcomes are quite different, particularly in regards to that feat, as you demonstrated quite clearly. If the feat can let you move further than you would if you didn't tumble at all, something is clearly wrong with allowing people to tumble only through specific squares.
Randall Montgomery 12-24-06, 09:22 AM	Well, no they don't. The outcomes are quite different, particularly in regards to that feat, as you demonstrated quite clearly. If the feat can let you move further than you would if you didn't tumble at all, something is clearly wrong with allowing people to tumble only through specific squares. This is incorrect. The feat dosen't let you move farther than you would if you didn't tumble, although it does let you move farther tumbling than if you didn't have it, which is the whole point of the feat. In my example, the character could move 60' without tumbling, taking an attack of opportunity. If the character had the Swift Tumbler feat, and tumbled only through threatened squares, he would move 55'. If he had the Swift Tumbler feat, and tumbled as the entirety of his move actions, he would move 50' (two 15' move actions, each with +10' movement). Finally, if he did not have the feat, and took his entire move actions tumbling, he would move 30'. In my example, I demonstrated two things: 1. You move A LOT farther when you only have to tumble through threatened squares, because you spend part of your action moving at full speed and only move at half speed when you're tumbling. The Swift Tumbler feat does nearly cancle this out, though. 2. The Swift Tumbler feat does exactly what it says it does under both conditions, giving the character an extra 10' of base speed while tumbling. You could argue that the character in my example should get 20' of movement while tumbling, since he's taking two move action, but I would rule that since his total movement tumbling is only 15', he has only spent a single move action tumbling, and would only get an extra 10' of movement. I'll admit this is a grey area, but I'd vote for sticking to the side of caution. If I had to guess the intent of the Cityscape writers, I'd say this feat is designed more towards PCs/NPCs who are trying to move through groups of opponents, and will therefore spend entire rounds tumbling. It's also much more effective for slower characters, since it would completely negate the tumbling penalty for any character with a 20' movement (halflings come to mind as an excellent race to take this feat). PS Just for the sake of arguement, let's say that in my example you did give the character with the Swift Tumbler feat tumbling through only threatened squares two move actions worth of extra speed, or another 20' movement. He can still only use this while he's tumbling, which means that at best the character moves 60', the same as if he didn't tumble. In no situation does he ever move faster while tumbling than he would if he wasn't, as Samwise suggested (unless he was smaller than a small creature, but then why would he have to tumble anyway).
Samwise 12-24-06, 11:21 AM	No, it let's you move further than someone who doesn't tumble at all. If you have a 30 foot base movement and you don't tumble, you move 6 squares. If you have a 30 foot base movement and tumble at half speed, you move 3 squares. If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, and tumble at half speed, you move 5 squares. If you have 30 foot base movement and pay double cost only when tumbling and tumble for 1 square, you move 4 squares. If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, pay double cost only when tumbling, and tumble for 1 square, you can move 7 squares. Only if you rewrite the feat so it only allows you to ignore the double cost for 2 potential squares of movement will you only reduce that to the person moving the same speed as someone who does not tumble. However, that requires the text of the feat to be completely rewritten, just as that Sage Advice entry rewrote the rule for tumbling, changing it from half speed to double cost.
Randall Montgomery 12-26-06, 02:46 PM	No, it let's you move further than someone who doesn't tumble at all. If you have a 30 foot base movement and you don't tumble, you move 6 squares. If you have a 30 foot base movement and tumble at half speed, you move 3 squares. If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, and tumble at half speed, you move 5 squares. If you have 30 foot base movement and pay double cost only when tumbling and tumble for 1 square, you move 4 squares. If you have 30 foot base movement, that feat, pay double cost only when tumbling, and tumble for 1 square, you can move 7 squares. I see where you're getting your numbers, but you didn't consider a major part of the feat, which specifies that you gain the bonus 10' to speed "while tumbling". Therefore, in your example, you would only gain the bonus movement in the 1 square where you're tumbling. Since 1 square is 1/6 of your movement while moving 30', and 1/5 of your movement while moving 25', your total movement in that instance would be (1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 +1/6 + 1/5 = 5/30 + 5/30 + 5/30 + 5/30 + 6/30 = 26/30). Since you can't use partial movement, this means you can only move 25'. In fact, if you do the math, a person with a 30' base speed and the Swift Tumbler feat will always move 25' any move action where they tumble, regardless of how many squares they actually tumble in. So while I was incorrect in how to apply the Swift Tumbler feat, all the numbers from my previous example are actually correct (just lucky, I guess).
Samwise 12-27-06, 01:41 PM	Well actually, they won't. If you have a 30 foot base speed, don't have the feat, move half speed, and tumble for 3 squares, you move 3 squares. If you have a 30 foot base speed, have the feet, move half speed, and tumble for 5 squares, you move 5 squares. If you have a 30 foot base speed, have the feat, pay double cost for each square, and tumble for 5 squares, you only get to move 4 squares before running out of your 40 foot "tumbling speed." So what your variable movement rate does is clip the speed with the feat. I'm missing where this is "easier" or in accord with the written rules. If WotC wants to change the rules for tumbling then they should. But it should be issued as an errata, not a vaguely defined option in Sage Advice.
Randall Montgomery 12-27-06, 02:46 PM	Well actually, they won't. If you have a 30 foot base speed, have the feat, pay double cost for each square, and tumble for 5 squares, you only get to move 4 squares before running out of your 40 foot "tumbling speed." So what your variable movement rate does is clip the speed with the feat. This is part of the problem I've been trying to explain to you. With the Swift Tumbler feat, you never have a base speed of 40'. Your speed with the feat is either 30' while moving normally, or 25' while you're tumbling. And in this case, you wouldn't pay double cost for your squares, because you have your own set tumbling speed. Best to think of it as similar to a climb speed or a swim speed. I'm missing where this is "easier" or in accord with the written rules. If WotC wants to change the rules for tumbling then they should. But it should be issued as an errata, not a vaguely defined option in Sage Advice. It is easier, in every instance except where you're applying the Swift Tumbler feat to a character with a 30' base speed (or in cases with characters with speed enhancements, such as monks and barbarians). What can I say, you found the loophole in the system. ;)
Arinaad 12-27-06, 03:03 PM	wow, you guys really know how to mince words and numbers. I know what you guys are talking about, I have a tumble monkey, but you are making it WAY too complicated to understand. I will try to simplify it: Both will be medium characters with 30 ft. move, and double movement, all tumbling occuring in the first movement's range. Option 1 (only tumbling when nescecary): Character moves full speed 60 ft. but tumbles 10 of it. total move=50ft. (first move=20 ft (10 regular, 10 tumble at half) Adding the feat from Cityscape: total move=60ft. Option 2 (full move, half-speed):character moves as far as possible, double move, tumbling 10 ft. total move=45ft (tumble first movement=15ft., normal movement 2nd move=30ft.) Adding the feat from Cityscape: total move=55ft. In conclusion, if you are only needing to tumble the portion of the move that occurs in threatened squares etc. you gain 5 whole feet of movement on a double move in these examples... BUT if you look at acrobats like those in the circus, or martial artists who use tumbling in demonstrations they do not tumble for the entire length of their movement... it is impractical, and I belive that the spirit of the rule was not to obstruct characters from only tumbling for part of their move. Arinaad
Samwise 12-27-06, 06:24 PM	It is easier, in every instance except where you're applying the Swift Tumbler feat to a character with a 30' base speed (or in cases with characters with speed enhancements, such as monks and barbarians). What can I say, you found the loophole in the system. ;) No, I just didn't try to create a new type of movement with a FAQ entry. Toss out that FAQ entry and there are no loopholes.