Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rockbasket 04-25-07, 07:26 PM	Ok, I need to settle an arguement among friends here. We've had this house rule for quite a while. We allow rogues (or anything else with sneak attack for that matter) to use tumble(DC 25) in order to move to the other side of an opponent and in turn, flanking them for a sneak attack. My arguement is against this. I say that, especially in a one on one fight, the opponent of the rogue would be able to keep its attention on the rogue throughout the tumble. "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus." A couple of my friends say that the rogue is so skilled at tumbling that they are able to tumble past the defender fast enough to get up AND sneak attack before the defender is able to fully realize what the rogue is doing. The secret behind this is that the tumble is supposed to allow the rogue a flanking bonus. Please respond with solid arguements. I'm not looking for people to agree with me. I want to understand why I am wrong if that is the case.
unusualsuspect 04-25-07, 07:32 PM	FLANKING When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked. Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent. The question is this: After the rogue has tumbled to the other side of the opponent, is or is not existent a character or creature friendly to the rogue on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner? Reworded for clarity: Is there someone on the opposite side of the opponent to provide a flanking bonus for the rogue? The answer, of course, is there is not. Ergo, the rogue cannot be his own flanker.
fatal error 04-25-07, 07:39 PM	Right. Clearly, by the rules, you can't flank by yourself, because you can't simultaneously be on opposite sides of your opponent. The idea of being able to flank with yourself by running around or through your enemy, however, has precedent as a "neat" feature of some games. Iron Heroes and GURPS both allow you to gain bonuses for starting out in front and ending behind your opponent. So, logically, I'd say you (the OP) are correct that a foe should be able to keep his guard up against a maniac rolling around on the ground. However, it is also very "neat" for fast characters to be able to exploit their speed and skill in such a way as this. But I doubt anyone in real life would be so slow as to allow an enemy to tumble within a foot of them, and get stabbed in the back. On the other hand, this scheme requires more than 5ft of movement, so it limits you to one attack, so I'd say it is hardly overpowered. Indeed, with the limitations on attacks, it is practically an alternative feint.
rockbasket 04-25-07, 07:39 PM	Thank you for agreeing. However, it's supposed to be a house rule. Basically would anyone say it's possible for someone to be caught off guard by someone who tumbles past you when you're attention is solely on them?
unusualsuspect 04-25-07, 07:50 PM	Yes. I'm 90% sure such a thing is already within the rule mechanics... one of the Skill tricks found in Complete Scoundrel. I don't own the book, so I can't tell you for sure... but one of the aspects that makes such an action (flanking by yourself) reasonable also seems like it would be much, much harder to do so to an opponent you've done this too already. Skill tricks take that into account by allowing them either once an encounter or once per opponent per encounter, I don't remember which.
BugHunter 04-25-07, 09:15 PM	There is a skill trick in the Complete Scoundrel called Acrobatic Backstab on page 84 that does what you are talking about. The catch with skill tricks most can only be used once per encounter. Acrobatic Backstab Prerequisite: Tumble 12 ranks
Jaxgaret 04-25-07, 09:31 PM	If I were creating such a houserule, it would probably be something involving the DC40 Tumble check in OA that allows a character to take a 10' step instead of a 5' one. It says in the description that making this check would allow a PC to make a backflip completely over the foe, provoking no AoO. I would (probably) allow this to mean that the foe is considered flat-footed against the PC, and thus a valid Sneak Attack target. Absolutely a houserule though.
Another_Poet 04-25-07, 09:32 PM	Thank you for agreeing. However, it's supposed to be a house rule. Basically would anyone say it's possible for someone to be caught off guard by someone who tumbles past you when you're attention is solely on them? Yes, there are moves like this (that actually involve tumbling) in some Eastern martial arts, and in fencing there are techniques to move past an opponent quickly and hit him from behind. This is hitting the opponent "en passant", i.e., in passing. Those are real life situations. For the rogue in the game, imagine him stabbing the groin, slicing the hamstring, or chopping the back of the knee as he tumbles behind his opponent. All three are easy to reach from the ground and would hurt enough to call in the extra d6's of "sneak damage". I kind of like your house rule.
rockbasket 04-25-07, 09:40 PM	Thank you for your input. However, I fail to imagine a fencer allowing another fencer to get behind him. I could maybe see this happening if the defender had just missed the rogue. In that case, I think it would still take a skill trick or a feat in order to do so. In fact, I think there are feats that allow people to do such a thing.
Jaxgaret 04-25-07, 09:42 PM	Thank you for your input. However, I fail to imagine a fencer allowing another fencer to get behind him. I could maybe see this happening if the defender had just missed the rogue. In that case, I think it would still take a skill trick or a feat in order to do so. In fact, I think there are feats that allow people to do such a thing. Or a backflip over the head that doesn't even provoke an AoO. That's kind of hard to prepare for. See my above post for reference.
Shadowhowler 04-25-07, 10:24 PM	Thank you for your input. However, I fail to imagine a fencer allowing another fencer to get behind him. I could maybe see this happening if the defender had just missed the rogue. In that case, I think it would still take a skill trick or a feat in order to do so. In fact, I think there are feats that allow people to do such a thing. It normaly involves side-steping and counter attacking against a lunge. In fencing, if your oponent commits to a solid lunge and you can read his body languge enough to anticipate it, you can get around him and attack his unrpotected flank as he over commits himself.
Shadowhowler 04-25-07, 10:26 PM	Yes, there are moves like this (that actually involve tumbling) in some Eastern martial arts, and in fencing there are techniques to move past an opponent quickly and hit him from behind. This is hitting the opponent "en passant", i.e., in passing. I have not heard that term since my chess playing days. :) I used to fence with my father... and he never tought me the 'terms' to go along with the moves, but I think it's funny that THAT would be the term. Makes sense tho. I have not played a game of chess in over 10 years now... been that long since I fenced either, oddly enough. :( I'm old.
BugHunter 04-26-07, 12:28 AM	Of course this is assuming the target doesn't have Improved uncanny dodge.
Epilepticemu 04-26-07, 12:40 AM	and in fencing there are techniques to move past an opponent quickly and hit him from behind. This is hitting the opponent "en passant", i.e., in passing. Not quite... It's not hitting them from behind, because once you've passed the other fencer the director (should) will call a halt. I've never (current collegiate fencer) seen a fencer, after passing, score a hit in any way on the fencer he has just passed. However, I have seen a fencer who was just passed slightly pivot and extend their point behind them to get a point on the passer, and it counts if the director sees it as one action. Although that's pretty much off topic, sorry I just couldn't resist the correction. Look at the Complete Scoundrel thing though; like it does, I could buy it only if its used one per encounter.
Shadowhowler 04-26-07, 02:48 AM	Not quite... It's not hitting them from behind, because once you've passed the other fencer the director (should) will call a halt. I've never (current collegiate fencer) seen a fencer, after passing, score a hit in any way on the fencer he has just passed. However, I have seen a fencer who was just passed slightly pivot and extend their point behind them to get a point on the passer, and it counts if the director sees it as one action. Although that's pretty much off topic, sorry I just couldn't resist the correction. Is it safe to assume, then, that Collegiate fencing is mostly Line fencing as opposed to circle fencing? You'll have to forgive my ignorance in this, as I said before, my fencing experince is less then formal, but what you are describing sounds like line fencing.
Leilond 04-26-07, 03:46 AM	There is a feat to sneak attack alone. It is called "Improved feint" If your rougue want to sneak without flankers he must take the feat or use "invisibility" or the like DC 25 is VERY LOW for a rougue Let's immagine a level 13 rogue with 18 dexterity (16 + 2 because of his leveling) pluse "gauntlet of dexterity +4" (reasonable equipement at 10th level). He has a dexterity modifier of +6 16 point in tumble, plus 5 point in "jump" to gain +2 tumble Synergy bonus 16(rank) + 2 (synergy) + 6 (dexterity) = +24 It means that the rougue will sneak attack EVERY ROUND (because natural "1" isn't auto-fail for skill checks). It seem really overpowered to give a free sneak attack each round to a rougue... really overpowered
tarkin 04-26-07, 01:34 PM	I agree. He seems to be asking for a house rule to let Tumble act as a Bluff. But he is making it ridiculously easy. If I were to allow something similar to this, I would instead rule: "A succesfull Tumble check of DC 20 provides a +4 circumstance bonus to an attempted Feint made that round." That seems like a reasonable House Rule. What was originally proposed was not at all in line with the existing rules of the game.
moriarty13 04-26-07, 01:50 PM	I think the house rule makes some sense to me. DC25 is a decent number. Sure, a person with 13 ranks in Tumble makes it look easy, but 13 ranks in a skill is, I believe, categorized as INSANELY GOOD. Isn't 5 ranks in a skill considered "master" level? Sure, the rogue gets a free sneak attack every turn. But only one. They give up iteratives and two-weapon fighting by moving more than 5'. So, make a DC25 tumble check, get one attack. Who cares? Any sane rogue would still prefer an actual flanking partner to get the iteratives and such. It just gives them an option when they are alone. And it gives NPC rogues the same advantage. Basically, I would picture it as juking left, then rolling around to the right and stabbing away. It sort of works like a physical feint rather than a "look over there!" feint. The feint rules are awful anyway (the opponent gets to add BAB to sense motive for some reason?!?). I assume it keeps the rules about multiple opponents? I.E. each opponent beyond the first that you'd like to avoid AoOs from adds 2 to the DC. I just don't see it being a big deal.
Droma 04-26-07, 02:35 PM	Not quite... It's not hitting them from behind, because once you've passed the other fencer the director (should) will call a halt. I've never (current collegiate fencer) seen a fencer, after passing, score a hit in any way on the fencer he has just passed. However, I have seen a fencer who was just passed slightly pivot and extend their point behind them to get a point on the passer, and it counts if the director sees it as one action. The reason the rule is like that is to avoid injuries, no glove on offhand and the helmet doesnt protect the back of the head. However that doesnt mean the move wouldnt be viable in actual combat. I've managed to pull off a stab in the side during an actual fencing match when my opponent over commited so a DC25 tumble check to allow a stab in the back seems reasonable to me.
ScipioX 04-26-07, 03:01 PM	The problem I see with such a house rule is that it takes an ability of bluff and adds it to tumble. Tumble is already one of the best skills out there, no need to make it even better. If you like the idea, use the skill trick at least. Once per encounter and a cost to buy it balance it out a bit.
Droma 04-26-07, 03:26 PM	The problem I see with such a house rule is that it takes an ability of bluff and adds it to tumble. Tumble is already one of the best skills out there, no need to make it even better. If you like the idea, use the skill trick at least. Once per encounter and a cost to buy it balance it out a bit. Agreed it should cost at least a feat or the skill trick would be pretty worthless in their game.
Captain_Kobold 04-26-07, 09:40 PM	If you can find it, there is a feat called acrobatic strike that does what I think you are trying to do. PHBII or Complete warrior I think. If you're going to allow your current houserule, change the DC in some way to take into account the opponent you are trying to outmaneuvre. Otherwise you are allowing a person to use an already effective skill at a set DC to replicate what you would otherwise need a variable DC check with a different skill and a 2nd tier feat to do. You could simply give all rogues the Improved Feint feat for free and allow them to use tumble instead of bluff for feinting. This would make things a little more difficult for them than your current system but involve the minimum amount of actual rule breakage. You could do similar things with other classes to even things up. Allowing a Wizard to make spellcraft checks with a +4 bonus instead of Concentration checks to cast defensively for example. Or giving fighters the Cleave feat for free and letting them use a strength-based DC 20 intimidate check to move past or through a number of opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity. Those examples are pretty much what your houserule is giving to rogues.
stargate525 04-26-07, 09:51 PM	As a DM, I would allow it, but only once per encounter (or per month for any that survive). That seems like something that you would only fall for once.
kalstrand 04-26-07, 10:59 PM	The reason they get to add BAB to their Sense Motive check to avoid a feint is because BAB represents their skill in combat. The higher the BAB the better trained they are which includes spotting feints.