Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phydorex 07-11-07, 03:55 AM	The rules lawyer I DM tried some whacky charging while tumbling manuever, while the party pretty much agreed this was something only for the Drunken Master (Stagger) he claims he can do it, the rules say neither way. He is a scout so he does alot of tumbling for skirmish damage. Advise please, Thanks in advance
Novacat 07-11-07, 04:09 AM	Without some special class-specific ability, you cannot combine a tumble with a charge. It makes no sense. Tell him that just because the book doesn't SAY humans have to sleep, common sense tells us you do. Just because no specific rule restricts you from being both prone and standing, we already know that the two positions are mutually exclusive. That, I assume, is why the book does not say "you cannot run straight forward slowly while rolling and diving side-to-side". It makes no sense. Slap him and tell him to sit down and shut up.
Leilond 07-11-07, 06:00 AM	The rules lawyer I DM tried some whacky charging while tumbling manuever, while the party pretty much agreed this was something only for the Drunken Master (Stagger) he claims he can do it, the rules say neither way. He is a scout so he does alot of tumbling for skirmish damage. Advise please, Thanks in advance Tumble is made as part of a move action Charging is a full round aciton. You cannot take a full round action and a move action in the same round You beat him on his own ground, rule lawyering quoting the rules of tumbling, PHB page 84 Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. Quoting the rules for charging, PHB page 154 Charging is a special full round action... It is more than enought
Dheran 07-11-07, 07:28 AM	Tumble is made as part of a move action Not necessarily; it can also be used as part of a full-round action. Quoting Complete Adventurer, page 103:Sprinting Tumble: You can try to tumble past or through an opponent's space while running by accepting a -20 penalty on your Tumble check. and PH page 144:Run You can run as a full-round action. ... When you run, you can move up to four times your speed in a straight line quoting the rules of tumbling, PHB page 84 Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. Quoting the rules for charging, PHB page 154 Charging is a special full round action... The action type argument doesn't work. So if using Tumble while charging is legal, we need to figure out how it works. Now, what is a charge? It's basically two move actions plus an attack, with restrictions. This is more "action" than is normally possible in a 6-second round, so the restrictions must enforce some sort of time savings. Either moving in a straight line is faster, leaving time for an attack at the end, or the movement is normal speed and the attack is somehow faster than normal. (Frankly, I don't see how the latter argument can work, because you can charge with a tripping weapon like a spiked chain, requiring you to stop and pull backward.) Anyway, if the movement is regular speed you need to impose the -10 Accelerated Tumbling penalty; but if the movement is faster then you're basically running to make up the time savings and if you Tumble the -20 Sprinting Tumble penalty applies. Let's assume you choose the -20 penalty (if for no other reason than you want to discourage this maneuver). Then the PC needs to invest enough in Tumble to be able to make a DC 35 (for the easiest charge: no obstacles) or DC 45 (if there's one enemy in the way) check. My feeling is if they can make DC 45 they've probably paid enough in character resources to be allowed to pull it off. That's a lot of skill investment just to avoid an AoO occasionally.
Leilond 07-11-07, 07:36 AM	The fact that a "special rule" let you run with tumble doesn't mean that you can run with charge The rules are clear Tumble is made as part of a move action So you cannot tumble during a full round action A special rule called "sprinting tumble" let you tumble while running No special rules exist that let me tumble during a charge Thus, no tumbling charge Charging ISN'T two move action and an attack Charging is a full round action that let you move twice your movement on the grid, following some special movement restriction, and then deliver a single attack The rules cleary define every single issue. If you change the definitions (defining charge in a different ways the manual define it) to better fit your interpretation of the rule, you're changing the rules. You can do it, but at least do not claim they're the rule. The change can be logical and interesting, but it will be an house rule, it is better that we know if we're talking about rules or not
Dheran 07-11-07, 07:47 AM	The fact that a "special rule" let you run with tumble doesn't mean that you can run with charge What makes this rule any different from all the other official D&D rules? Every supplement adds or changes the rules in the core books. That's the way WotC wants it. In particular, this "special rule" is in the same book that the PC's class is defined in, so if the character is OK then this rule should be OK too. The rules are clear Tumble is made as part of a move action or as part of a full round action, as noted previously. So you cannot tumble during a full round action Except that I've provided at least one rule which allows you to do exactly that. Either you accept that WotC has the power to make and change the rules in the core books, and we need to be aware of these changes, or you're not playing official D&D.
Leilond 07-11-07, 07:52 AM	What makes this rule any different from all the other official D&D rules? Every supplement adds or changes the rules in the core books. That's the way WotC wants it. When a rule will say that I can tumbling with charge it will work or as part of a full round action, as noted previously. No, as part of a run. It doesn't say "every full round action" it clearly talk about RUNNING. You cannot extend that to all the full round action Except that I've provided at least one rule which allows you to do exactly that. You proved that you can tumbling while running. It's a special rule that talk about running and thus it apply to running. You cannot extend the rule to all the full round action out there It's like saying that: I can deliver a touch attack as part of casting a spell. Casting a spell is a standard action. Thus I can deliver a touch attack as part of any standard action! Can you deliver a touch attack if you drink a potion of bull strenght? Either you accept that WotC has the power to make and change the rules in the core books, and we need to be aware of these changes, or you're not playing official D&D. But the rules you quoted change it only referring to run, they didn't say "every full round action"
Dalthbar 07-11-07, 08:12 AM	We know that when charging, "nothing can hinder your movement", so at the very least, on top of everything else, the PC needs to be willing to take a -10 to their Tumble check to tumble at their normal speed. But for me, when I read that charging is a "special full round action", it means that it's not "movement" and it's not "an attack", it's special and unique. As such, just saying that "you can tumble when you move" doesn't account for the fact that charging isn't listed as a form of "movement" anywhere in the Movement, Position, and Distance section in the SRD. The only note is that you can't charge in difficult terrain (and that's under the terrain section).
Leilond 07-11-07, 08:29 AM	We know that when charging, "nothing can hinder your movement", so at the very least, on top of everything else, the PC needs to be willing to take a -10 to their Tumble check to tumble at their normal speed. But for me, when I read that charging is a "special full round action", it means that it's not "movement" and it's not "an attack", it's special and unique. As such, just saying that "you can tumble when you move" doesn't account for the fact that charging isn't listed as a form of "movement" anywhere in the Movement, Position, and Distance section in the SRD. The only note is that you can't charge in difficult terrain (and that's under the terrain section). Without considering that tumbling isn't defined only like "part of a movement", it is defined also like "part of a move action"
Irving 07-11-07, 09:21 AM	Consider this argument: The "Tumbling Charge" special ability is a feature of several presitge classes, including the thief-acrobat. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041210b&page=3) Here is is for reference's sake: Acrobatic Charge (Ex): A 3rd-level thief-acrobat can charge in situations where others cannot. He may charge over difficult terrain that normally slows movement or allies blocking his path. This ability enables him to charge across a cluttered battlefield, leap down from a ledge, or to swing across a chasm to get to his target. Depending on the circumstance, he may still need to make appropriate checks (such as Jump, Tumble, or Use Rope checks) to successfully move over the terrain. This is a unique feature of the class, that seems to grant permission for you to do what you're claiming can be done by anyone. Why would such be the case?
The_Ditto 07-11-07, 09:29 AM	You cannot take a full round action and a move action in the same round Hustle? :P But yeah, normally you cannot tumble + charge ... :tiphat: (Note: even if you used Hustel to get the Full round + move action ... it works like: Move action: move/tumble to position A .. Full round: charge to position B ... no tumble ... ) :tiphat: Oh, and the SRD? Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement I've seen it decided (wasn't this in an FAQ?) that charging is not "normal movement" .. (neither is crawling on the ground prone, neither is climbing - unless you have a climb speed ... etc ...)
Leilond 07-11-07, 09:31 AM	Hustle? :P But yeah, normally you cannot tumble + charge ... :tiphat: (Note: even if you used Hustel to get the Full round + move action ... it works like: Move action: move/tumble to position A .. Full round: charge to position B ... no tumble ... ) :tiphat: Oh, and the SRD? Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement I've seen it decided (wasn't this in an FAQ?) that charging is not "normal movement" .. (neither is crawling on the ground prone, neither is climbing - unless you have a climb speed ... etc ...) You forgot to quote the entire rule that you find in the tumble description Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. Pheraps a charge is a regular movement, but for sure it isn't a move action
Big_Mac 07-11-07, 09:54 AM	The other point is that a charge is reckless (IE that is why it has a -2 AC) Tumbling is a skilled thought out action. So without special training it would not make sense to be able to mix the 2.
Dalthbar 07-11-07, 09:54 AM	Pheraps a charge is a regular movement, but for sure it isn't a move action We know that charging is not "regular movement" because charging is a "special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action". It's unique, and the movement allowed in a charge is contingent on all sorts of conditions. The fact that charging is under the "Special Attacks" section of the rules and not "Movement" lends more evidence that it shouldn't be considered "movement" but "an attack".
Vegepygmy 07-11-07, 03:45 PM	The rules are clear Tumble is made as part of a move action So you cannot tumble during a full round actionThis argument fails, however, because we have the Jump skill. Jump contains the same language as Tumble regarding what kind of an action it is: A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. But we know that you can Jump as part of a Charge without any feat or special class ability (because the FAQ tells us so). Thus, we know that the mere fact that Jumping/Tumbling is "part of a move action" does not prohibit it from being used during a Charge. Thus, the only question is whether moving at one-half speed is "hindered movement" as defined by the Charge action. The Charge action says that hindrances include obstacles like walls, squares that slow movement, and creatures. Technically, if you're moving at one-half speed because you're Tumbling, it's not the square that is slowing your movement, but I think the intent is that you have to be able to move at full speed in order to Tumble. Thus, my ruling would be that you can Tumble as part of a Charge if you take the -10 penalty for accelerated tumbling.
Pentar 07-11-07, 03:51 PM	What makes this rule any different from all the other official D&D rules? Every supplement adds or changes the rules in the core books. That's the way WotC wants it. In particular, this "special rule" is in the same book that the PC's class is defined in, so if the character is OK then this rule should be OK too. Give it up dude. Tumbling into a Charge is a special ability reserved for certain classes as a class feature. Just like not having to charge in a straight line is a special ability reserved as a class feature or feat. You cannot do it unless you have that class feature, or some feat or magical item that replicates it. Period. End of Story. Nice try, come again.
Colmarr 07-11-07, 11:21 PM	I agree largely with Vegepygmy. The text of Tumble says: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. The bold text is a rule. The italicised text is an interpretation of that rule. As Vegepygmy has pointed out, there is a logical fallacy in that interpretation. It says that movement = move action. We all know that's not the case. The jump skill, the bull rush action and the dervish dance ability all represent moving without using a "move action". So moving without using a move action is possible, and the interpretation text in Tumble cannot be correct. Which leaves us with "Tumbling is part of movement". Nothing in that stops tumbling during charging. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). IMO, accelerated tumbling does not hinder movement*, so as long as the PC can make the check against the heightened DC, I would allow tumbling during a charge. * This is arguable, as it could be said that the ability to double your speed is a normal part of being able to move, and tumbling prevents you from doubling your speed. N.B. There is no way (at least pre-epic) to tumble at greater than your normal speed. So a charge involving a tumble is not at double speed (or an alternate ruling might be that each square spend tumbling costs double).
Metafictional 07-12-07, 12:24 AM	When are you allowed to make a partial charge? Since a partial charge only takes a standard action, it seems to imply that you could move, then partial charge? I'm pretty sure you're not normally allowed to do that, reserving partial charge for those times when you cannot make a move and a standard action....although ready for a partial charge is, you have to admit, rather odd...
Pentar 07-12-07, 01:29 AM	This argument fails, however, because we have the Jump skill. Jump contains the same language as Tumble regarding what kind of an action it is: A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. But we know that you can Jump as part of a Charge without any feat or special class ability (because the FAQ tells us so). Thus, we know that the mere fact that Jumping/Tumbling is "part of a move action" does not prohibit it from being used during a Charge. Thus, the only question is whether moving at one-half speed is "hindered movement" as defined by the Charge action. The Charge action says that hindrances include obstacles like walls, squares that slow movement, and creatures. Technically, if you're moving at one-half speed because you're Tumbling, it's not the square that is slowing your movement, but I think the intent is that you have to be able to move at full speed in order to Tumble. Thus, my ruling would be that you can Tumble as part of a Charge if you take the -10 penalty for accelerated tumbling. Given your logic Vegepygmy, you can charge while Prone, since the only reason your movement is hindered while prone, is because you're flat on your freakin' a$$. Yes, this makes sense and is clearly what WoTC intended. :rolleyes:
Dheran 07-12-07, 08:04 AM	IMO, accelerated tumbling does not hinder movement*, so as long as the PC can make the check against the heightened DC, I would allow tumbling during a charge. * This is arguable, as it could be said that the ability to double your speed is a normal part of being able to move, and tumbling prevents you from doubling your speed. N.B. There is no way (at least pre-epic) to tumble at greater than your normal speed. So a charge involving a tumble is not at double speed (or an alternate ruling might be that each square spend tumbling costs double). You can Tumble at greater than normal speed, because you can Tumble while running:Sprinting Tumble: You can try to tumble past or through an opponent's space while running by accepting a -20 penalty on your Tumble check. IMO the double move at the beginning of a charge action represents running for half the round (because of the same speed multiplier and same straight-line limitations).
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 08:15 AM	Tumbling is done "as part of normal movement". Charging can not be considered "normal movement" because: 1) It's a "special full round action" - which means that you have to consider "charging" as one thing. Not a collection of moves and an attack. It's a single entity. 2) The simple fact that it's "special" means that it's not "normal". 3) It's listed under the "Special Attacks" subsection in the "Combat" section. It's clearly an attack - not movement. I don't see how you can get around these three items.
Leilond 07-12-07, 08:19 AM	You can Tumble at greater than normal speed, because you can Tumble while running: IMO the double move at the beginning of a charge action represents running for half the round (because of the same speed multiplier and same straight-line limitations). There is not "double move at the beginning of the charge". The charge is "move double your movement and attack" as a single full round action. But tumble cannot be done during all full round actions You cannot tumble while you take a 5' foot step You cannot tumble while you charge You can tumble while you take a move action You can tumble while you run The rules have clear definitions of actions. You changed them You defined a charge like an "half run + attack". That's not a rule definition, that's your house rule
zorgling25 07-12-07, 10:33 AM	You can Tumble at greater than normal speed, because you can Tumble while running: IMO the double move at the beginning of a charge action represents running for half the round (because of the same speed multiplier and same straight-line limitations). You are saying that the fact that you can tumble while running IMPLIES you can tumble while you perform any sort of movement. However, that is your interpretation, and others are allowed their own. This means that the ONLY way that any rules disputes would be resolved on this forum is if our goal is NOT to determine how it SHOULD work, but rather, how RAW says its works. In my group, we have a simple system by which to resolve a situation like this. First, you have a precedent, which is defined only as the situations legal as stated in the skill description. ONLY if another rule EXPLICITLY states that it is an exception to precedent, does that exception work. Any implications are not valid. In our case, the precedent is so: Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. Did no one think to interpret this in the most RAW manner possible, which is that Tumbling can only be used as part of the action called "move"? Move The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can’t also take a 5-foot step. That tumbling only applies to the normal action called "move" makes most sense because a) it would explain why the rules say tumbling is part of a move action, because the only action it can normally be applied to IS a move action, and b) all the DCs in the DC table refer to "normal movement," which other actions which let you move are not. Now on to exceptions: Sprinting Tumble: You can try to tumble past or through an opponent's space while running by accepting a -20 penalty on your Tumble check. OK, so this lets you tumble while running. Cool. It does NOT mean you can tumble while performing ANY action in which you move or ANY full-round action. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. Not an exception, but worth bringing up. Again, same language as Tumble, meaning the only action you can normally apply Jump to is the "move" action. The fact that you can jump in a charge is an exception, brought up in the FAQ. I don't recall the FAQ also saying "note that you may also tumble as part of a charge." If we're dealing with rules disputes on this forum, we get into enough arguments as is. There's no room for us to argue about individual DMs' interpretation. the only way we can resolve this is by reading RAW as strictly as possible in any given situation (and I hope I've done that). And even if I'm wrong, please note that Charge falls under the "Special Attacks" section of the SRD, meaning that it doesn't technically count as a form of movement. :D
The_Ditto 07-12-07, 10:50 AM	You forgot to quote the entire rule that you find in the tumble description Pheraps a charge is a regular movement, but for sure it isn't a move action I forgot nothing, Tumble is done as part of normal movement Charge is not "NORMAL" movement ... This argument fails, however, because we have the Jump skill. The jump skill only talks about move action .. it does NOT use the term: "NORMAL MOVEMENT" ... (are we seeing the key phrase here yet folks? ;) ) But we know that you can Jump as part of a Charge without any feat or special class ability (because the FAQ tells us so). Correct, since jump does not restrict you to "NORMAL MOVEMENT", you can Jump + charge ... but since Tumbling DOES restrict you to "NORMAL" movement, you cannot tumble + charge .. (since charge is not "NORMAL" movement .. movement, yes ... normal, no.) Thus, we know that the mere fact that Jumping/Tumbling is "part of a move action" does not prohibit it from being used during a Charge. Failed conclusion based on incorrect assumption ... Thus, the only question is whether moving at one-half speed is "hindered movement" as defined by the Charge action. Not the only question, but the answer to that is clear ... Yes it is ... since "hindered movement" is anything that slows you down .. and yes, Tumbling at 1/2 is "slowing you down". No, you still can't do an accelerated Tumble, (unfortunately) due to that pesky phrase: "NORMAL MOVEMENT" .. :tiphat: As a DM, I'd allow a feat to allow it .. I don't see a huge balance issue in it ... Thus, my ruling would be that you can Tumble as part of a Charge if you take the -10 penalty for accelerated tumbling. I'd agree that I'd probably allow it .. however I would (probably) additionally require a feat to allow it first ... :tiphat: Which leaves us with "Tumbling is part of movement". Nothing in that stops tumbling during charging. Except you quoted it wrong ... it says: "tumbling is part of NORMAL movement .. and charge is not "NORMAL" movement ... IMO, accelerated tumbling does not hinder movement*, I agree completely ... :tiphat: Just to clarify, I think a "normal" tumble does hinder movement .. (maybe not that useful to the discussion, but since we're clarifying .. :P ) When are you allowed to make a partial charge? Since a partial charge only takes a standard action, it seems to imply that you could move, then partial charge? Anytime you are restricted from talking full actions (ie surprise round, slowed, you're a zombie .. whatever ..) You can Tumble at greater than normal speed, because you can Tumble while running: IMO the double move at the beginning of a charge action represents running for half the round (because of the same speed multiplier and same straight-line limitations). Ok, so they took Tumble .. restricted it to normal movement .. then clarified and allowed during a run ... ok? Still doesn't give us anything for Charge .. we're still restricted to that pesky phrase: "NORMAL MOVEMENT" .. ;) Again, same language as Tumble, Not quite .. Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement There is no such phrase in Jump ..
Irving 07-12-07, 11:41 AM	On an unrelated but similar note: Can you tumble during a Spring Attack? I can't quite decide; Spring Attack is not very well worded. But I think so, since Spring Attack modified your attack action, not your move action. (I will also point out that tumbling while using Spring attack is a very cool Jackie Chan sort of thing, so if it's not legal, I'd love to find a way to make it so.)
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 11:45 AM	"Normal movement" is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus, we have no idea exactly what it means. The FAQ, however, states that crawling is "normal movement." If crawling is "normal movement," I see no reason why charging would not also qualify. It would not be unreasonable, however, for a DM to interpret Tumble's "normal movement" language as prohibiting Tumbling during a charge. I don't personally subscribe to that interpretation, but it's not an unreasonable one. (I won't even point out that the subject of a fly spell can charge even though flying is obviously not "normal movement," because someone will just scream: "That's an explicit exception!" :rolleyes:)
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 11:51 AM	Can you tumble during a Spring Attack?The 3.0 FAQ specifically states that you can Tumble during a Spring Attack.
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 11:53 AM	"Normal movement" is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus, we have no idea exactly what it means. It would not be unreasonable, however, for a DM to interpret Tumble's "normal movement" language as prohibiting Tumbling during a charge. I don't personally subscribe to that interpretation, but it's not an unreasonable one. Charging can not be considered "normal movement" because: 1) It's a "special full round action" - which means that you have to consider "charging" as one thing. Not a collection of moves and an attack. It's a single entity. 2) The simple fact that it's "special" means that it's not "normal". 3) It's listed under the "Special Attacks" subsection in the "Combat" section. It's clearly an attack - not movement. I don't see how you can get around these three items.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 11:58 AM	"Normal movement" is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus, we have no idea exactly what it means. The FAQ, however, states that crawling is "normal movement." If crawling is "normal movement," I see no reason why charging would not also qualify. It would not be unreasonable, however, for a DM to interpret Tumble's "normal movement" language as prohibiting Tumbling during a charge. I don't personally subscribe to that interpretation, but it's not an unreasonable one. As I already stated, we DO have a definition for "normal movement." It is the action called "move" under Actions in Combat. Under "move" it says crawling and climbing fall under that category. Charge is relegated to a specific separate entry. Since using fly to move your speed is still moving your speed, flying counts as normal movement. Charging gives you an attack in addition to moving your speed, and does not count under the "move" action.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 12:00 PM	I don't see how you can get around these three items.Quite simply, because "normal movement" is not defined. Thus: 1) The fact that a charge is a "special full round action" doesn't tell us whether the movement involved in a charge is "normal" or "special." 2) See #1, above. 3) See Jump. If charging were only an attack and not any kind of movement, you couldn't Jump as part of a charge.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 12:04 PM	As I already stated, we DO have a definition for "normal movement." It is the action called "move" under Actions in Combat.The word "normal" does not appear anywhere in that section. In fact, that section specifically notes that "many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category." Would you like to try again?
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 12:05 PM	So if your basic argument hinges on "FAQ says you can jump during a charge, jumping has some very loose similarities to tumble, thus you can tumble while charging", then where's the FAQ entry that says you can tumble while charging? By that basic reasoning, the exclusion of "you can tumble while charging" from the FAQ is more circumstantial evidence that you can't do it. You can't separate the "movement" from the "action" of the charge. The charge is the sum of all of it's parts and we can't deconstruct it and reconstruct it. And we know that a charge is an attack, it's not movement, thus you can't tumble while charging. So unless the FAQ posts otherwise, everything about tumbling and charging says you can't - regardless of what jump says, which isn't immediately pertinent.
Pentar 07-12-07, 12:11 PM	"Normal movement" is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus, we have no idea exactly what it means. The FAQ, however, states that crawling is "normal movement." If crawling is "normal movement," I see no reason why charging would not also qualify. The reason is that Crawling is done as a move action, not a full-round action that gives you a +2 to attack at the end of the move, while also giving you a -2 AC as a result of it. And before you say it, it is the Prone condition that gives you a penalty to your AC against melee attacks - not the Crawling move action. I read over the sections regarding this in the PHB and it states explicitly that hindered movement stops a Charge action. They give examples of "such as, walls and obstacles". The "such as" implies that they are merely using that as an example of ways your movement can be hindered - terrain is but one factor. They do not (and should not) have to indicate every single possible form of hindered movement. So long as you are somehow hindered in your movement, you cannot Charge. This would include; - while prone - while entangled - while climbing - while tumbling Note, Jumping does not hinder your movement. It merely adds to it - letting you get over obstacles or terrain in the same move action - or giving you the ability to move a little bit farther in one round at the expense of your move action the next round. It does not say, "While jumping, you move at 1/2 normal speed". Now, if you took a feat that allows you to Tumble at normal movement, then this becomes a different situation... because your movement is no longer "hindered", then potentially, one could rule you could charge. And at DC 40 or whatever it is, if you make that DC check then sure, I could see allowing a tumbling charge without a special class feature (afterall, it costs a feat too).
zorgling25 07-12-07, 12:17 PM	The word "normal" does not appear anywhere in that section. In fact, that section specifically notes that "many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category." Would you like to try again? Its still irrelevant to the argument at hand. As the rules are grouped, Charging counts as a special ATTACK, not a movement form. Jump's FAQ says explicitly that Jumps can be made as part of a charge. Nothing of the sort is written for Tumble. If there is no explicit rule stating it, it can't be considered RAW, because its missing the "written" part of "rules as written." On the issue of normal movement, you're right, there is no definition explicitly for normal movement. Now my interpretation is (and you are entitled to your own, neither of ours are RAW) that if there is no explicit definition, then the closes explicit definition should apply. In this case, the closest definition to "normal movement" is just "movement" which is the move action. Its also interesting to note that without quotes and any hyperlinks in the SRD, "move" action and move action appear identical on reading, even though they mean different things.
Kursk 07-12-07, 12:43 PM	The rules lawyer I DM tried some whacky charging while tumbling manuever, while the party pretty much agreed this was something only for the Drunken Master (Stagger) he claims he can do it, the rules say neither way. He is a scout so he does alot of tumbling for skirmish damage. Advise please, Thanks in advance I love these scenarios as a DM. I usually ask what they want to do (visually in some cases), "I want to 'charge' 3/4 of the way and then somersault up to the monster and bound into a standing position and attack." Okay, I say. Player rolls the tumble check (whatever, just to make sure he somersaults) and combat takes its course. I wouldn't allow the PC the advantages of the charge but hey, he tried it.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 12:44 PM	So if your basic argument hinges on "FAQ says you can jump during a charge, jumping has some very loose similarities to tumble, thus you can tumble while charging", then where's the FAQ entry that says you can tumble while charging?No such entry is needed, because the logic of it is evident from the discussion on Jumping during a charge. Some skills are performed as part of movement (Balance, Climb, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Swim, Tumble, and sometimes Ride). Some such skills specify that you can perform them while charging (Balance, Hide, Move Silently). Others do not (Jump, Tumble). The FAQ tells us that even though the Jump skill description doesn't explicitly state that you can Jump while charging, you can do so. Thus, it is evident that these movement-related skills are intended to be useable with movement-related actions like charging. There are, however, some unanswered questions that can be answered using common sense. For example, can you charge while Climbing? Probably not, because you can't charge if your movement is hindered, and even an accelerated Climb is only at half-speed. What if you have a natural climb speed, though? Probably yes, charging is okay then. Can you Tumble while Climbing? Wow, that's a weird one. If you accept the argument that any movement mode mentioned under the "Move" action section of "Actions in Combat" is "normal movement," there's nothing to prevent someone from Tumbling while Climbing. But if you assume (as I do) that "normal movement" refers to one's normal movement modes (i.e., land speed for humans, climb speeds for apes and such), then no, you probably cannot Tumble while Climbing. (Apes can, and humans under the effect of a spider climb spell can, but most humans cannot.) And so on. You can't separate the "movement" from the "action" of the charge.Of course you can. If you couldn't, you could not Jump during a charge. What kind of an "action" something is simply tells you how much of your turn is consumed by doing it. The charge is the sum of all of it's parts and we can't deconstruct it and reconstruct it. And we know that a charge is an attack, it's not movement, thus you can't tumble while charging.I'm sorry, but saying that a charge isn't "movement" when it explicitly includes moving some distance is utter nonsense.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 12:50 PM	Now, if you took a feat that allows you to Tumble at normal movement, then this becomes a different situation... because your movement is no longer "hindered", then potentially, one could rule you could charge.You don't need a feat to tumble at normal speed; you just have to take a -10 penalty on your Tumble check (as I stated in my original post on this subject). I'm pleased to see that you agree with me that you can tumble while charging if you take a -10 penalty on your Tumble check to tumble at full speed. :)
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 12:56 PM	As the rules are grouped, Charging counts as a special ATTACK, not a movement form. Jump's FAQ says explicitly that Jumps can be made as part of a charge. Nothing of the sort is written for Tumble. If there is no explicit rule stating it, it can't be considered RAW, because its missing the "written" part of "rules as written."The FAQ is not RAW, however. The FAQ merely clarifies the RAW. Thus, it's not that you can Jump while charging because it's written in the FAQ that you can...it's written in the FAQ that you can Jump while charging because that's how Jumping and charging and movement in general work. So you don't need the FAQ to explicitly state it for you. The FAQ has already given you an example (Jump), and it expects you to apply the logic of that answer to other, similar questions (Tumble).
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 12:57 PM	I'm sorry, but saying that a charge isn't "movement" when it explicitly includes moving some distance is utter nonsense. We'll file it in the same bin as we do Teleport, Dimension Door and Shadow Jump as they involve moving, but aren't move actions themselves.
Kursk 07-12-07, 01:05 PM	expects you to apply the logic of that answer to other, similar questions (Tumble). So you would allow s/o to run 1/2 way then roll across the floor the other 1/2 of the distance and still apply a charging bonus?
zorgling25 07-12-07, 01:07 PM	The FAQ is not RAW, however. The FAQ merely clarifies the RAW. Its arguable that the FAQ clarifies Rules As Intended and not Rules As Written, but thats a different discussion entirely. I can see that the rules can be interpreted both ways, depending on how strict you are in your interpretation of the rules. So IMO it could go both ways, and its up to the DM (like so many things in this game). Now, is there anything left to argue?
Big_Mac 07-12-07, 01:27 PM	Vegepygmy, I understand what you would like to do. The issue is the you are confusing movement (I.E the ability to move) so when charging you are moving, with the D&D definition of movement. In D&D movement is a MOVE Action, which is the ability to move up to your speed and you can tumble during that. You can do 2 Move Actions in a round, which is referred to as hustling, but then you can not attack. Charging explicitly says you may move up to double you speed and attack. It does not say you can take 2 move actions and then attack.
Kursk 07-12-07, 01:33 PM	If a guy was 30' away from his opponent and wanted to back flip and charge at him I'd allow it. 6 seconds is a long time to cover that 30' Don't know how it would help the PC but who cares?
zorgling25 07-12-07, 01:34 PM	Vegepygmy, I understand what you would like to do. The issue is the you are confusing movement (I.E the ability to move) so when charging you are moving, with the D&D definition of movement. In D&D movement is a MOVE Action, which is the ability to move up to your speed and you can tumble during that. You can do 2 Move Actions in a round, which is referred to as hustling, but then you can not attack. Charging explicitly says you may move up to double you speed and attack. It does not say you can take 2 move actions and then attack. We've made this argument. However, the FAQ lets you Jump as a part of a charge, and depending on how strictly or loosely you consider the FAQ, Wizards may or may not have intended for the ability to Tumble as a part of a charge to be implicit, since the FAQ points out that the ability to Jump as a part of the charge was implicit.
Big_Mac 07-12-07, 01:42 PM	We've made this argument. However, the FAQ lets you Jump as a part of a charge, and depending on how strictly or loosely you consider the FAQ, Wizards may or may not have intended for the ability to Tumble as a part of a charge to be implicit, since the FAQ points out that the ability to Jump as a part of the charge was implicit. Nothing in D&D is implied. You can even rationalize jump because Jumping is in a straight line also. The thing is there is no inheritance between skills. Just because Jump and Tumble have some similarities does not mean that the rule applies to both. The added point is that jump is Strength based not Dex based. So that will limit the inference even more.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 01:50 PM	So you would allow s/o to run 1/2 way...Run (i.e., move at x4 speed)? No. Hustle (i.e., move at x2 speed)? Yes. ...then roll across the floor the other 1/2 of the distance...If by "roll" you mean tumble, yes, as long as they took the -10 penalty to tumble at full speed. ...and still apply a charging bonus?Yes.
Kursk 07-12-07, 01:59 PM	If by "roll" you mean tumble, yes, as long as they took the -10 penalty to tumble at full speed. Yes. I mean roll. I have the players describe what they are trying to do. Makes it easier to adjudicate.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 01:59 PM	Nothing in D&D is implied.Oh, really? So dead people can take actions in D&D? People can go without sleep for days, weeks, even months in D&D and suffer no degradation of their mental faculties, motor skills, etc.? There are tons of things implied in the D&D rules. The game designers themselves often tell us: "The rules cannot cover every possible situation." You are expected to use your brain while playing D&D.
Pentar 07-12-07, 02:05 PM	You don't need a feat to tumble at normal speed; you just have to take a -10 penalty on your Tumble check (as I stated in my original post on this subject). I'm pleased to see that you agree with me that you can tumble while charging if you take a -10 penalty on your Tumble check to tumble at full speed. :) Ahh, see I said specifically to take a feat because then at least it gives some reason for certain classes to have Extraordinary abilities that give them to option to Tumble into a Charge. At least then their "extraordinary" ability isn't completely superfluous as you would have made it. I am, in turn, glad you are completely unable to address the rest of my points.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 02:05 PM	I mean roll. I have the players describe what they are trying to do. Makes it easier to adjudicate.I agree that having the players describe what they are trying to do makes it easier to adjudicate, but you still have to "translate" what they're trying to do into game terms. I don't know if by "roll" you mean somersault, steamroll, or some other kind of maneuver. I don't know if the intent is to avoid attacks of opportunity or bypass some kind of movement-hindering obstacle such as a very low ceiling. Assuming you mean somersault to avoid attacks of opportunity, yes, I would allow it. If you mean steamroll to bypass a very low ceiling, no, I would treat that as a crawl. If you mean something else entirely, obviously I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean.
Pentar 07-12-07, 02:07 PM	Thus, it's not that you can Jump while charging because it's written in the FAQ that you can...it's written in the FAQ that you can Jump while charging because that's how Jumping and charging and movement in general work. So you don't need the FAQ to explicitly state it for you. The FAQ has already given you an example (Jump), and it expects you to apply the logic of that answer to other, similar questions (Tumble). But jumping, as part of a move action, does not hinder your movement. Tumbling as part of a move action does. But regardless, you're still wrong about Charging being "movement". Yes, you move, but it's not part of a "Move action". It's part of a Full Round action that allows you to move as a special function. Sort of like the same way you get +2 to attack and -2 AC... also sort of how you can get bonus damage when using certain weapons.
Kursk 07-12-07, 02:09 PM	If you mean something else entirely, obviously I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean. That's my point. If the player states that they are somersaulting up to the creature then I simply rule they don't have the momentum to get the charge bonus. They may however be harder to hit. The more complex the player wants to get the more detail I demand.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 02:12 PM	But regardless, you're still wrong about Charging being "movement". Yes, you move, but it's not part of a "Move action". It's part of a Full Round action that allows you to move as a special function. Sort of like the same way you get +2 to attack and -2 AC... also sort of how you can get bonus damage when using certain weapons. Except that the FAQ answer shows that while Wizards wrote that Jump can only be applied to a move action, that was not what they intended, which means that the similar intention could be applicable to tumble, due to the similarity in certain parts of the subtext which have been pointed out above.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 02:16 PM	I am, in turn, glad you are completely unable to address the rest of my points.You are confusing inability with lack of motivation. I don't think you scored any points with those arguments, so there is no reason to address them. (I actually agree with you regarding hindered movement and charges, as you should know if you read my original response, so why would I "address" that argument?)
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 02:21 PM	But jumping, as part of a move action, does not hinder your movement. Tumbling as part of a move action does.Not if you take the -10 penalty on your check to do it at full speed. But regardless, you're still wrong about Charging being "movement". Yes, you move, but it's not part of a "Move action".Show me where "movement" is defined as being something that can only occur as a result of a move action. If you Withdraw, is that "movement"? If you Run, is that "movement"?
Pentar 07-12-07, 02:23 PM	Except that the FAQ answer shows that while Wizards wrote that Jump can only be applied to a move action, that was not what they intended, which means that the similar intention could be applicable to tumble, due to the similarity in certain parts of the subtext which have been pointed out above. Except that tumbling into a charge is a special ability of certain prestige classes. Word-smith it any way you like, but I think we are all completely aware that there is not intention of allowing a Tumbling charge with certain, specifically stated, special abilities. Notwithstanding that Jumping, ultimately, does not hinder movement, a specific scenario that precludes Charging. Tumbling does. Even with a -10 to the roll, the nature of the movement is a hindrance and so it precludes charging.
Dalthbar 07-12-07, 02:25 PM	Tumbling and Charging are diametrically opposed. Charging is an action in which you become easier to hit. Tumbling, by it's nature, is a defensive action that prevents someone from attacking you. If not for all of the other evidence provided, they're simply not conducive to being stacked given their divergent natures.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 02:26 PM	Except that tumbling into a charge is a special ability of certain prestige classes. Word-smith it any way you like, but I think we are all completely aware that there is not intention of allowing a Tumbling charge with certain, specifically stated, special abilities. Point me to a PrC that tumbling into a charge is a class feature of. You'll note that Thief-Acrobat doesn't count, as it groups Tumbling in the same group as Jumping, as skills that still need apppropriate checks. It says nothing about the Thief-Acrobat's prior ability to use or not use Tumbling as a part of a charge, merely that he can now cross difficult terrain and through allies. As I've already said, RAW is ambiguous on this. You've made several arguments that I previously made and was convinced otherwise of. At this point, its an issue of interpreting Rules as Intended.
Pentar 07-12-07, 02:27 PM	Not if you take the -10 penalty on your check to do it at full speed. Show me where "movement" is defined as being something that can only occur as a result of a move action. If you Withdraw, is that "movement"? If you Run, is that "movement"? I can't - because you can move with any number of special actions in combat. Like an Overrun, or a Bull Rush, or a Charge. All of these are (do I really need to italics it again for you?) special moves that are exceptions to standard actions. In a normal situation, any Full Round of attacks only allows you a 5' step, right? You use your Move action. In a normal situation, any normal move action only allows you to move up to your maximum spaces for that round, right? Charge breaks a whole lot of "normal rules" to create a special feature. This special feature can only be done within the boundaries of certain limitations, of which, Tumbling is limited because of the nature of the movement. A human being who is Climbing without any magical enhancements, cannot charge while climbing. Their movement is hindered. Even if they could climb as full speed, I think we can all agree that climbing into a charge is retarded. There's no reason WoTC needs to insert a paragraph for your benefit to say that "You cannot climb into a charge".
The_Ditto 07-12-07, 02:50 PM	"Normal movement" is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus, we have no idea exactly what it means. Basic english + common sense .. :tiphat: The FAQ, however, states that crawling is "normal movement." If crawling is "normal movement," I see no reason why charging would not also qualify. Note quite ... it says the only "normal movement" available while crawling .. it doesn't say that crawling IS normal movement ... Nitpick, maybe ... but worth mentioning .. :tiphat: (I won't even point out that the subject of a fly spell can charge even though flying is obviously not "normal movement," because someone will just scream: "That's an explicit exception!" :rolleyes:) I clarified that earlier .. I'll do it again .. neither is climbing - unless you have a climb speed ... etc ...) I didn't call on fly .. but did imply it ... :bow: Can you Tumble while Climbing? Wow, that's a weird one. If you accept the argument that any movement mode mentioned under the "Move" action section of "Actions in Combat" is "normal movement," there's nothing to prevent someone from Tumbling while Climbing. Correct .. a monkey - which has a climb skill - should be able to tumble + climb quite easily ... (ever watch a monkey "run" through the trees .. :eek: ) But if you assume (as I do) that "normal movement" refers to one's normal movement modes (i.e., land speed for humans, climb speeds for apes and such), then no, you probably cannot Tumble while Climbing. (Apes can, and humans under the effect of a spider climb spell can, but most humans cannot.) Agreed on that ... :D I'm pleased to see that you agree with me that you can tumble while charging if you take a -10 penalty on your Tumble check to tumble at full speed. :) I myself am not too against allowing it either (however, I would encourage a feat)... but I do believe the core rules do not allow it ...
zorgling25 07-12-07, 03:00 PM	"Normal movement" is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus, we have no idea exactly what it means. Basic english + common sense .. :tiphat: Except by the same token, look at the wording of TWF: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. By "common sense" you could read regular attack as meaning that even if you don't full attack, having the 2nd weapon means that you incur TWF penalties, at which point the concept of "declaring" TWF becomes irrelevant. I know it seems like common sense, but unfortunately, its not really Rules as Written unless its written.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 04:56 PM	Except that tumbling into a charge is a special ability of certain prestige classes.The designers of various prestige classes make all kinds of errors. The abjurant champion has a class feature that is obviously intended to work with mage armor yet doesn't because the designer apparently didn't realize that mage armor is a conjuration rather than an abjuration. The fact that whoever designed the swashbuckler, thief-acrobat, etc. apparently thought you can't normally tumble during a charge doesn't affect my reasoned judgment that you can indeed.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 05:08 PM	In a normal situation, any Full Round of attacks only allows you a 5' step, right? You use your Move action.You lost me. What move action? If you are using the full attack action, you have no move action to use. And taking a 5-foot step is not a move action, anway. In a normal situation, any normal move action only allows you to move up to your maximum spaces for that round, right?It depends on what counts as "normal" (as I've been saying). If climbing and swimming are considered "normal movement" (as some have argued here), then some normal move actions only allow you to move up to one-quarter of your maximum spaces for that round. Charge breaks a whole lot of "normal rules" to create a special feature. This special feature can only be done within the boundaries of certain limitations, of which, Tumbling is limited because of the nature of the movement.You keep saying that tumbling is outside the limitations of the charge action, but I have yet to see any good reason for it to be so. The only reason I can see that tumbling would be incompatible with charging is that it seems to me you have to be able to move at your full speed in order to charge. But since you can move at full speed and tumble by taking a -10 penalty on your Tumble check, that only prevents un-accelerated tumbling during a charge. A human being who is Climbing without any magical enhancements, cannot charge while climbing. Their movement is hindered. Even if they could climb as full speed, I think we can all agree that climbing into a charge is retarded.No, I don't agree with that. That is, in fact, why I said a creature with a natural climb speed should be able to climb as part of a charge--because the movement of such a creature is not hindered; it is able to move as easily up walls and similar surfaces as it is upon the ground.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 05:13 PM	"Normal movement" is not defined anywhere in the rules. Thus, we have no idea exactly what it means. Basic english + common sense ..When you're discussing a world of magic where people can fly through the air unassisted, spider climb on walls and ceilings, and burrow through the ground, "common sense" is really not enough to define a vague word like "normal." I'm a big believer in using the ordinary, everyday meaning of words in the rules unless they are explicitly defined otherwise, but in this case it just doesn't work.
The_Ditto 07-12-07, 06:23 PM	Except by the same token, look at the wording of TWF: By "common sense" you could read regular attack as meaning that even if you don't full attack, having the 2nd weapon means that you incur TWF penalties, at which point the concept of "declaring" TWF becomes irrelevant. Unfortunately that requires you to totally ignore this passage: Full Attack ..., because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon ... I know it seems like common sense, but unfortunately, its not really Rules as Written unless its written. nice try ... but quit twisting things to make them fit your interpretation ..stick to the RAW .. since you seem to like that so much .. :tiphat: When you're discussing a world of magic I'm not discussing a world of magic .. I'm discussing the rules ... the RAW at that ... ;) where people can fly through the air unassisted, spider climb on walls and ceilings, and burrow through the ground, "common sense" is really not enough to define a vague word like "normal." I suppose that's your choice .. and I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this ... but be careful toting around the phrase RAW so quickly ... try to stick with "IMHO" and we'll get along more better ... :tiphat:
WolfHati 07-12-07, 06:31 PM	You can't tumble while charging. Otherwise they wouldn't have the class ability of the drunken master or the duelist's acrobatic charge. I think another class gets it too, swashbuckler maybe?
zorgling25 07-12-07, 06:54 PM	You can't tumble while charging. Otherwise they wouldn't have the class ability of the drunken master or the duelist's acrobatic charge. I think another class gets it too, swashbuckler maybe? The drunken master and duelist abilities dont rule out tumbling while charging. I'll use the duelist as an example. Acrobatic Charge (Ex) At 6th level, a duelist gains the ability to charge in situations where others cannot. She may charge over difficult terrain that normally slows movement. Depending on the circumstance, she may still need to make appropriate checks to successfully move over the terrain. Now, tumbling does slow movement. But last I checked, tumbling doesn't count as a kind of difficult terrain. There are arguments to be made in favor not being able to tumble in a charge. This isn't one of them.
Irving 07-12-07, 07:28 PM	The full text of the ability is as follows, as taken from the thief-acrobat class: Acrobatic Charge (Ex): A 3rd-level thief-acrobat can charge in situations where others cannot. He may charge over difficult terrain that normally slows movement or allies blocking his path. This ability enables him to charge across a cluttered battlefield, leap down from a ledge, or to swing across a chasm to get to his target. Depending on the circumstance, he may still need to make appropriate checks (such as Jump, Tumble, or Use Rope checks) to successfully move over the terrain. Seems that Tumble is a factor in here.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 07:33 PM	You can't tumble while charging. Otherwise they wouldn't have the class ability of the drunken master or the duelist's acrobatic charge. I think another class gets it too, swashbuckler maybe?See abjurant champion. :tiphat:
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 07:37 PM	I'm not discussing a world of magic .. I'm discussing the rules ...You're discussing the rules that govern a world of magic. (I'll take your winky-smiley as acknowledgment that you're not really serious, of course.) I suppose that's your choice .. and I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this ... but be careful toting around the phrase RAW so quickly ... try to stick with "IMHO" and we'll get along more better ...I'll use "IMHO" when I'm expressing my opinion, and "RAW" when I'm discussing the RAW. If you're bothered by anything I say or do, that's too bad, but I'm not really worried about "getting along" with you. Sorry. The RAW are not on your side here. The RAW are, at best for you, ambiguous.
Irving 07-12-07, 07:44 PM	Funny you should keep bringing that abjurant champion example up. Fromas Ask Wizards 11/13/06: Q: The abjurant armor class feature of the abjurant champion prestige class (Complete Mage) takes effect whenever he casts "an abjuration spell that grants an armor bonus or shield bonus to AC." Doesn't that really only apply to the shield spell, since mage armor is a conjuration spell? --Jayme A: If you're only using spells from the Player's Handbook, then it's true that this class feature has a limited impact. However, other resources have provided additional spells that fit the bill, including repelling shield (from Complete Mage) and ectoplasmic armor (from Spell Compendium). In other words, the ability is not an error in the book. You're just not looking at the rules hard enough. Which, frankly, at this point comes as no surprise.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 07:45 PM	...Depending on the circumstance, he may still need to make appropriate checks (such as Jump, Tumble, or Use Rope checks) to successfully move over the terrain. Seems that Tumble is a factor in here.So is Jump. Yet we know that you can Jump as part of a charge without having the Acrobatic Charge ability, so that kind of derails your argument.
Irving 07-12-07, 07:50 PM	It does not invalidate it, however, unless you contend that anyone can make a Use Rope check as a part of a charge.
Colmarr 07-12-07, 07:55 PM	The only place that the term "normal movement" is used in the Tumble skill entry is in two rows on the table of DCs. Despite assertions to the contrary, there is no definition of normal movement in the game, and any assertion that "normal movement" = "normal move action" is blatantly false. Five foot steps, bull rushing, running and overruning are all part of the standard combat rules. They are all "normal movement". Teleporting, being pushed by someone else while levitating, and being shot out of a cannon are all examples of "non-normal" movement. Even if you disagree with that, the rules for accelerated tumbling explicitly state that you can tumble "more quickly than normal".
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 07:56 PM	Funny you should keep bringing that abjurant champion example up... In other words, the ability is not an error in the book. You're just not looking at the rules hard enough.No, it's a pretty widely recognized error. Check out this thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=745891 What the "Ask Wizards" column omits is that mage armor is explicitly mentioned in the class description, and that the example character is presented as having mage armor that benefits from the class ability.
Irving 07-12-07, 08:00 PM	...and you're still not reading the rules closely enough. The errors you cite are in the example character. Not the ability itself. The example of the rules give is wrong; the rule is not.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 08:00 PM	It does not invalidate it, however, unless you contend that anyone can make a Use Rope check as a part of a charge.I contend that the rules do not indicate one way or another whether anyone can make a Use Rope check as part of a charge; for example, to swing across a room on a rope and attack at the end of that movement. As DM, I would allow it, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for a DM to disallow it.
Vegepygmy 07-12-07, 08:03 PM	The errors you cite are in the example character. Not the ability itself. The example of the rules give is wrong; the rule is not.You're missing the point. The point is not that the rules are wrong. I agree with you that they are not. The point is that the designer of the prestige class made a mistake. And if he can make such a mistake, so can the designer(s) of the swashbuckler, thief-acrobat, etc.
Irving 07-12-07, 08:03 PM	I will submit to you that if a specific ability permits it - such as the Acrobatic Charge ability - then logically, it is not permitted if a character does not have that ability, unless contradicted by a specific rule.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 08:03 PM	The full text of the ability is as follows, as taken from the thief-acrobat class: Acrobatic Charge (Ex): A 3rd-level thief-acrobat can charge in situations where others cannot. He may charge over difficult terrain that normally slows movement or allies blocking his path. This ability enables him to charge across a cluttered battlefield, leap down from a ledge, or to swing across a chasm to get to his target. Depending on the circumstance, he may still need to make appropriate checks (such as Jump, Tumble, or Use Rope checks) to successfully move over the terrain. Seems that Tumble is a factor in here. That doesn't mean that a character normally is unable to make those checks. It just means that he still has to make them, even with the ability. The fact that Jump is in there advances the case that Tumble should also be usable as part of a charge, especially since you are allowed to jump as part of a charge without the ability.
Irving 07-12-07, 08:05 PM	You're missing the point. The point is not that the rules are wrong. I agree with you that they are not. ... and for the third time running, you're not reading closely enough. I do not agree with you. The rule is right. The example is wrong.
Irving 07-12-07, 08:09 PM	That doesn't mean that a character normally is unable to make those checks. It just means that he still has to make them, even with the ability. The fact that Jump is in there advances the case that Tumble should also be usable as part of a charge, especially since you are allowed to jump as part of a charge without the ability. If such is the case, can you explain to me what the ability actually does, then? Reword it for me. What does it do, if anyone can do these things without the rule?
zorgling25 07-12-07, 08:24 PM	If such is the case, can you explain to me what the ability actually does, then? Reword it for me. What does it do, if anyone can do these things without the rule? Um... Normally you can't charge through obstructions like difficult terrain or allies. This ability lets you do that. Everything between that and the note about skills is fluff. Last I checked, tumbling wasn't "difficult terrain."
The_Ditto 07-12-07, 08:48 PM	The RAW are not on your side here. The RAW are, at best for you, ambiguous. It's not about sides ... what you're talking isn't RAW .. period. You tried to use TWF to support your claim .. I proved that an invalid point . Fact is fact .. and you can't change it just because you disagree ... Fact is: Tumble is restricted to normal movement .. and charge isn't normal movement ... Fact is: Everything else in the game which IS an exception is explicitly called out on (such as Jump, such as TWF ) ... This one isn't ... ergo, it is not an exception that is allowed. Until a quote from the RAW is provided which clarifies that it is an exception (such as Jump, or such like the TWF is set out), then it's quite simply, not allowed ... It might not make sense, you may want to houserule it ... knock yourself out ... but what you're talking isn't RAW ... don't be so quick to try to claim you know the RAW so easily ... ;) Take it or leave .. doesn't matter ... still your "interpretation" ... period. Cheers! :tiphat: (If you think you have the RAW interpretation down pat so easily, why not e-mail Cust Serv? I don't get guys like you .. toting around odd-ball rules interpretations, spewing the "RAW" argument like it's gospel, but never do anything to actually research your angle ... FYI: I submitted a post to Cust Serv earlier today ... :tiphat: )
zorgling25 07-12-07, 09:04 PM	You tried to use TWF to support your claim .. I proved that an invalid point . To be fair, he didn't use TWF as a point. I did, and I was proven wrong. I still say it can go either way. RAW is ambiguous, so it all depends on what you think the RAI is.
The_Ditto 07-12-07, 09:15 PM	To be fair, he didn't use TWF as a point. I did, and I was proven wrong. I still say it can go either way. RAW is ambiguous, so it all depends on what you think the RAI is. Ahh sorry about that .. wasn't paying attention to the poster name ... ;) Apologies for that .. :bow: btw ... did some digging and found out why this dicussion seemed so familiar ... hehe ... I've had it before with others 2 years ago .. :D Found a couple of things to chew on though .. Swashbuckler - clarified http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050714a - called out to specifically allow tumble + charge Drunken Master - clarified http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010105 - called out to specifically allow tumble + charge Unfortunately, they didn't touch on the topic in Rules of the Game "All about movement" .. (they should have called it: "Mostly about movement" .. :P )
zorgling25 07-12-07, 09:21 PM	A Swashbuckler - clarified http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050714a - called out to specifically allow tumble + charge Drunken Master - clarified http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010105 - called out to specifically allow tumble + charge Unfortunately, they didn't touch on the topic in Rules of the Game "All about movement" .. (they should have called it: "Mostly about movement" .. :P ) I'm just playing Demogorgon's advocate here... Both of those also seem to specifically allow jump + charge as well, because they are raised together. Is a regular character without those class features allowed jump+charge? If he is, can't he by extension also tumble+charge?
Colmarr 07-12-07, 10:36 PM	Fact is: Tumble is restricted to normal movement .. and charge isn't normal movement ... Not true. Firstly, at best, it is an opinion that charging isn't normal movement. I addressed this assertion in post #74 and no one has IMO provided a convincing counter-argument. Secondly, the text of accelerated tumble clearly states that you can tumble faster than normal. Nothing in the text of charge says that you must move at double your normal speed, and it is entirely possible to charge at normal speed if you so wish. If a PC or NPC does so, they are within the text of accelerated tumbling.
Pentar 07-12-07, 11:42 PM	You keep saying that tumbling is outside the limitations of the charge action, but I have yet to see any good reason for it to be so. The only reason I can see that tumbling would be incompatible with charging is that it seems to me you have to be able to move at your full speed in order to charge. But since you can move at full speed and tumble by taking a -10 penalty on your Tumble check, that only prevents un-accelerated tumbling during a charge. No Vege, it's more than just being able to move at your full speed. It's being able to move at TWICE your full speed. Tumbling with a -10 penalty will let you Tumble without the movement penalty (thus at full speed). But it doesn't let you tumble at twice your speed. Basically, the way I see it, any form of movement that normally hinders your movement that you cannot apply a Run x4 modifier and gain your actual movement at x4 is a form of movement you cannot charge with, unless you have a specific ability that overrides it. For example: Your standard movement is 30'. You can Swim at 1/4 your movement as a move action or 1/2 as a full round. Since taking a full-round action to "Run" in this mode of movement does not get you 120', you are hampered and cannot charge with that particular mode of movement. If you're a Spider who can walk on walls at x4 speed as a full round action, then you can charge with that form of movement.
Pentar 07-12-07, 11:46 PM	See abjurant champion. :tiphat: Your continuous argument that because they screwed up one thing means they screwed up everything is juvenile and spiteful. I will also note for the record that people have asked Ask Wizards about the Abjurant Champion and I believe it may have been addressed in the latest FAQ, that despite the wording in the PrC about using Mage Armour, there are other forms of magic armour that the Abjurant Champion can take advantage of. Now, that doesn't mean I disagree with you about that particular PrC... It is stupid. But that doesn't render every other PrC ever made subject to question. If you do that, why don't you just take the entire game and re-write it your own image?
Pentar 07-12-07, 11:50 PM	Um... Normally you can't charge through obstructions like difficult terrain or allies. This ability lets you do that. Everything between that and the note about skills is fluff. Last I checked, tumbling wasn't "difficult terrain." Zorgling, you are purposefully misreading what it says in the PHB. It says "Such as difficult terrain". The words such as indicates that it is merely an example of what can be considered a hindrance to movement. It is not the be all end all of what hinders movement. They do not (and should not) list every single possible thing that fits that bill - it's up to you, using some iota of intelligence and common sense, to determine what does and does not make sense when applying their rules, coupled with their example. Tumbling isn't "difficult terrain", but it is hindered movement. You cannot charge while Tumbling because you cannot Tumble-Run (that is, move x4 Your speed while tumbling).
zorgling25 07-12-07, 11:58 PM	Zorgling, you are purposefully misreading what it says in the PHB. It says "Such as difficult terrain". The words such as indicates that it is merely an example of what can be considered a hindrance to movement. It is not the be all end all of what hinders movement. They do not (and should not) list every single possible thing that fits that bill - it's up to you, using some iota of intelligence and common sense, to determine what does and does not make sense when applying their rules, coupled with their example. Tumbling isn't "difficult terrain", but it is hindered movement. You cannot charge while Tumbling because you cannot Tumble-Run (that is, move x4 Your speed while tumbling). And you missed my point entirely. Jump is also one of the skills listed with the class ability that it says you can perform with a charge because of the ability. Since we know that you can Jump + Charge from the FAQ, despite it not being part of RAW, is it possible that Tumble + Charge was also RAI, if not RAW?
Pentar 07-13-07, 12:04 AM	And you missed my point entirely. Jump is also one of the skills listed with the class ability that it says you can perform with a charge because of the ability. Since we know that you can Jump + Charge from the FAQ, despite it not being part of RAW, is it possible that Tumble + Charge was also RAI, if not RAW? Jump does not, in any way, affect how far you can move in a round (unless you fail the jump check). Even if you exceed your normal movement with a Jump check for that round, you have to spend your next move action to compensate for that. So ultimately, Jumping neither increases, nor decreases how far you can potentially move with any action (again, unless you fail the roll). Tumbling does. You cannot Tumble at x2 your movement as part of any action... unless you have some feat that I don't know about.
Dheran 07-13-07, 12:44 AM	I'd like to start out by thanking Vegepygmy for doing most of the heavy lifting in forwarding the position that you can Tumble while charging. No Vege, it's more than just being able to move at your full speed. It's being able to move at TWICE your full speed. Tumbling with a -10 penalty will let you Tumble without the movement penalty (thus at full speed). But it doesn't let you tumble at twice your speed. Basically, the way I see it, any form of movement that normally hinders your movement that you cannot apply a Run x4 modifier and gain your actual movement at x4 is a form of movement you cannot charge with, unless you have a specific ability that overrides it. Here's where I differ from Vegepygmy. I agree with Pentar that you need to move at faster than the normal hustle rate during a charge. What is a charge, actually? It's basically a double move and an attack, with restrictions. This is more "action" than is normally allowed in a single round, so the restrictions must represent something that saves time: either the attack is faster, or the movement is faster. I can't see how the attack can be faster because you can use a tripping weapon like a spiked chain on a charge, and that means you need to stop and pull back for the attack. But the faster movement idea makes sense to me, in large part because the straight-line movement restriction looks a lot like running. So my interpretation is that charging involves running for the movement part to allow enough time in the round to also make the attack. This means that the -10 Accelerated Tumbling penalty is insufficient; instead the -20 Sprinting Tumble penalty (from Complete Adventurer) is needed.
Vegepygmy 07-13-07, 12:55 AM	So my interpretation is that charging involves running for the movement part to allow enough time in the round to also make the attack. This means that the -10 Accelerated Tumbling penalty is insufficient; instead the -20 Sprinting Tumble penalty (from Complete Adventurer) is needed.It's a good point Pentar raises, but it can't actually be running that's involved. If it was, you'd lose your Dex bonus to AC rather than just suffer a -2 penalty to AC. Frankly, I don't think any of us can really answer the question until the game designers define "normal movement." I'd even settle for just a statement somewhere that charging is not "normal movement." Until then, I'll just stick to my house rule that tumbling as part of a charge is fine and dandy with a -10 penalty on the check, and others can stick to their house rule that it's not allowed without Acrobatic Charge.
Leilond 07-13-07, 03:35 AM	Tumble isn't made only during a "normal movement". Tumble is made during a MOVE ACTION That's the rule as written
Novacat 07-13-07, 04:13 AM	Just as a note, the Salamander Charge maneuver from ToB specifies tumbling as an option you cannot normally take during a charge (but which is allowed as part of the maneuver).
The_Ditto 07-13-07, 08:00 AM	Not true. Firstly, at best, it is an opinion that charging isn't normal movement. I addressed this assertion in post #74 and no one has IMO provided a convincing counter-argument. Charging carries with it several restrictions ... that makes it "not normal" .. Run also carries several restrictions ... that makes it "not normal". However, we have explicit text giving us Run + Tumble ... We do not, however, have explicit text giving us Charge + Tumble .. Ergo ... no Charge + Tumble .. :tiphat: And you missed my point entirely. Jump is also one of the skills listed with the class ability that it says you can perform with a charge because of the ability. Since we know that you can Jump + Charge from the FAQ, despite it not being part of RAW, is it possible that Tumble + Charge was also RAI, if not RAW? Jump + Charge has never really been an issue ... since: Jump is part of movement ... (not explicitly stated as "normal" movement) and also does not slow you down ... there is nothing in the rules that prevent Jump + Charge ... there is no reason to show that they cannot co-exist ... and the FAQ clarifies that. Tumble + Charge, however ... does have additional restrictions within it ... and there is no FAQ clarification - or any other clarification for that matter .. Ergo ... no Tumble + Charge ... :tiphat: Frankly, I don't think any of us can really answer the question until the game designers define "normal movement." I'd even settle for just a statement somewhere that charging is not "normal movement." Fair enough .. :tiphat: Until then, I'll just stick to my house rule that tumbling as part of a charge is fine and dandy with a -10 penalty on the check, and others can stick to their house rule that it's not allowed without Acrobatic Charge. And I to mine ... ;) (that is, no charge + Tumble without a feat or class skill ..) Tumble isn't made only during a "normal movement". Tumble is made during a MOVE ACTION That's the rule as written I beg to differ ... Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement and Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement that's "RAW" .. now what does it mean? Well, as Vegepygmy has stated (and I agree with) - let's wait and see a "proper definition" from Wizards .. Until then ... RAW is "undefined" ... simply because there are multiple "interpretations" possible .. and the RAW does nothing to help us establish one as "superior" or "more correct" ... we all have our beliefs and our "interpretations" ... and we will all continue to use those until (and maybe after? ;) ) we get an "official" word from wizards .. :tiphat: Just as a note, the Salamander Charge maneuver from ToB specifies tumbling as an option you cannot normally take during a charge (but which is allowed as part of the maneuver). Interesting ... can we get a partial quote (not full - don't want to violate CoC .. but it IS relevant to this discussion so I think a partial quote is in order?) I don't have TOB .. anyone else verify this??
Leilond 07-13-07, 08:13 AM	Player Handbook, page 84 Tumbling is part of a normal movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action Tumble is part of a move action, by the RAW
Egres 07-13-07, 08:25 AM	Interesting ... can we get a partial quote (not full - don't want to violate CoC .. but it IS relevant to this discussion so I think a partial quote is in order?) I don't have TOB .. anyone else verify this?? It's published on the WotC site, so here you are the entire text: You initiate this maneuver as part of a charge attack. As with a charge, you can move up to double your speed and make a single attack, gaining a +2 bonus on the attack roll and a –2 penalty to your Armor Class while you move and until your next turn. Unlike a normal charge, however, your salamander charge does not need to be in a straight line and is not impeded by difficult terrain, or even other creatures. You can change direction as much as you want during your movement, and you can also use your Tumble skill to avoid attacks of opportunity or to move through opponents’ squares during the charge. When you initiate a salamander charge, a wall of shimmering, spectral fire appears in each of the squares along the path you take. A creature standing in the wall takes 6d6 points of fire damage at the beginning of that creature’s turn. A creature occupying a square adjacent to the wall takes 3d6 points of fire damage at the start of its turn. Creatures that move into or through the wall also take 6d6 points of fire damage. The wall lasts up to 5 rounds. You can automatically dispel the wall with a wave of your hand (a swift action), and the wall is automatically dispelled if you initiate another salamander charge. The wall does not block line of sight or line of effect. This maneuver is a supernatural ability.
The_Ditto 07-13-07, 08:39 AM	Player Handbook, page 84 Tumble is part of a move action, by the RAW You're blantently ignoring the first part of that quote ... By your logic, you could tumble when you try to control a frightened mount (a move action) or when trying to move a heavy object (also a move action). read the ENTIRE thing ... Apply it IN ITS ENTIRETY .. The entire line must remain true .. not just the 1 part you want .. Yes, move action ... Yes, "Normal movement" .. So no, you can't use it as part of a full round action (ie charge) so no, you can't use it as part of a standard action (ie ?? teleport ?? yeah, I'm grasping, but there's nothing I can think of that's a standard action that comes close to "movement" ..) And no, you can't use it as ANY move action (ie Stand up from prone) Yes you CAN use it when you use a MOVE ACTION to make "NORMAL MOVEMENT" When given multiple pieces for a rule, you must apply them all equally .. not just the ones that suit what you want .. sorry .. :tiphat:
The_Ditto 07-13-07, 08:42 AM	It's published on the WotC site, so here you are the entire text: You initiate this maneuver as part of a charge attack. As with a charge, you can move up to double your speed and make a single attack, gaining a +2 bonus on the attack roll and a –2 penalty to your Armor Class while you move and until your next turn. Unlike a normal charge, however, your salamander charge does not need to be in a straight line and is not impeded by difficult terrain, or even other creatures. You can change direction as much as you want during your movement, and you can also use your Tumble skill to avoid attacks of opportunity or to move through opponents’ squares during the charge. When you initiate a salamander charge, a wall of shimmering, spectral fire appears in each of the squares along the path you take. A creature standing in the wall takes 6d6 points of fire damage at the beginning of that creature’s turn. A creature occupying a square adjacent to the wall takes 3d6 points of fire damage at the start of its turn. Creatures that move into or through the wall also take 6d6 points of fire damage. The wall lasts up to 5 rounds. You can automatically dispel the wall with a wave of your hand (a swift action), and the wall is automatically dispelled if you initiate another salamander charge. The wall does not block line of sight or line of effect. This maneuver is a supernatural ability. Darn .. it's not quite the conclusive quote I was hoping ... yes, it does imply it (as does the Drunken master and others ...) but if those others weren't enough to convince people, I doubt this one will either. What I was hoping to see was something like: Feat blurb Benefit: blah blah blah, you can tumble when you charge .. blah blah blah Normal: you cannot tumble when you charge ... But that's not the case here .. it's basically the same thing as the drunken master ability ... and the acrobatic charge ... Still, I do believe all 3 of those support the no tumble + charge .. I think I still have to respect Vegepygmy's stance at this point, however, and wait for further (and more "absolute"?) clarification either way .. :tiphat:
Leilond 07-13-07, 08:49 AM	Are you really saying that? :eek: Why did they wrote "you can tumble while charging" in all that special rules if you can normally do it?
Irving 07-13-07, 08:54 AM	Becuase the people who want to tumble while charging won't be satisfied until Jesus says you can't. If someone from WoTC says you can't, then they must be mistaken (they've already done it once on this thread). And even if Jesus said it, they'd parse the commandment into unintelligibility (What does "move" mean, really? Since we can't define it easily, it must be meaningless...)
Novacat 07-13-07, 09:26 AM	Here's the relevant part: Unlike a normal charge, however, your salamander charge does not need to be in a straight line and is not impeded by difficult terrain, or even other creatures. You can change direction as much as you want during your movement, and you can also use your Tumble skill to avoid attacks of opportunity or to move through opponents' squares during the charge. This shows that WotC at least did not intend for Tumbling to be possible during a charge, if that means anything to you. I still stand by my original argument on page one.
Spikes01k 07-13-07, 10:12 AM	Tumble is made as part of a move action Charging is a full round aciton. You cannot take a full round action and a move action in the same round You beat him on his own ground, rule lawyering quoting the rules of tumbling, PHB page 84 Quoting the rules for charging, PHB page 154 It is more than enought Yeah Leilond is correct! However there is something that can save you. Simple little item in the MC page 76, Boots of the Battle Charger. This item makes charging a standard action, thus making tumbling possible to a degree, you might want to check it out.
Kursk 07-13-07, 10:38 AM	Player Handbook, page 84 Tumble is part of a move action, by the RAW So is crawling
Leilond 07-13-07, 10:48 AM	So is crawling First of all crawling isn't "normal movement"... why no one use the "full rule" but only "half of it"? 1) You tumble as part of a normal movement 2) Tumble check is part of a move action The two things are both written on the Player's Handbook. Why someone ignore the first and someone else ignore the second? It look like everyone ignore the one that make the thigs don't work how he would like And more important? Wasn't we talking about tumble and charge?
Vegepygmy 07-13-07, 11:39 AM	Why did they wrote "you can tumble while charging" in all that special rules if you can normally do it?They didn't write "you can tumble while charging." They wrote: ...and you can also use your Tumble skill to avoid attacks of opportunity or to move through opponents’ squares during the charge. So possibly the reason they called that out is that normally, you cannot charge through a square occupied by a creature, and nothing in the Tumble skill description changes that. (You can tumble to move through an opponent's space without provoking an AoO, but that doesn't negate the special limitation on charging through occupied spaces.) Also, as I keep pointing out (to no avail, it seems), the designers of official, published prestige classes can (and do) make mistakes sometimes. It seems to be a common assumption by many people that you can't tumble as part of a charge. If a prestige class designer makes the same assumption, and the error is not caught before the supplement goes to print (and don't anyone try to claim that Wizards doesn't make mistakes like that all the time), you wind up with a bit of superfluous text. Even if someone at Wizards later notices the error, it may not get fixed because it doesn't actually misstate any rules. ("Yep, you can do that if you have this class ability...and you can do it if you don't have this class ability. No need to go through all the hassle of an erratum!") At this point, since Leilond is making arguments that were put forth and demolished about 50 posts back (tumbling requires a move action, crawling isn't "normal movement," etc.), my only response to them will be: "See above."
Pentar 07-13-07, 12:09 PM	It's a good point Pentar raises, but it can't actually be running that's involved. If it was, you'd lose your Dex bonus to AC rather than just suffer a -2 penalty to AC. That's because you're not actually Running. You're Charging. You lose your DEX modifier to AC when you're running, but you also travel up to x4 your normal movement. You only suffer a -2 to AC when you Charge, but you can only move double your movement in a straight line. They are separate and distinct actions that provide different benefits at different costs. You have to stop thinking about it as being the same thing. Charging is a special move that breaks certain normal conventions. Really Veg, you're being hard-headed about this. Until then, I'll just stick to my house rule that tumbling as part of a charge is fine and dandy with a -10 penalty on the check, and others can stick to their house rule that it's not allowed without Acrobatic Charge. The only house rule is allowing Tumbling during a Charge without a special ability/feat/magical item enabling it. That's it. You can say all you like about; "Well WoTC screwed up one prestige class, therefore we can toss them all out the door for any sort of rules precedent", or word-smith the fact that they don't tell you every single possible combination of things "you can't do" when performing any action. For all intents and purposes, in your game, not only can you Tumble into a charge, you can CRAWL into one. Well, since you've word-smithed yourself into a corner, then your players are free to abuse that move to their heart's content!!
Pentar 07-13-07, 12:12 PM	Becuase the people who want to tumble while charging won't be satisfied until Jesus says you can't. If someone from WoTC says you can't, then they must be mistaken (they've already done it once on this thread). And even if Jesus said it, they'd parse the commandment into unintelligibility (What does "move" mean, really? Since we can't define it easily, it must be meaningless...) Amen to that. This type of BS drives me insane. Willful misinterpretation at its worst.
Pentar 07-13-07, 12:19 PM	[COLOR="DarkGreen"]So my interpretation is that charging involves running for the movement part to allow enough time in the round to also make the attack. This means that the -10 Accelerated Tumbling penalty is insufficient; instead the -20 Sprinting Tumble penalty (from Complete Adventurer) is needed. Look, Veg, Dheran, let's consider this definition of "normal" movement. Normal movement is the type of natural movement that a creature can perform without hindrance. Thus, a human can perform Tumbling while walking/running on solid ground. However, a human could not perform tumbling while Swimming, Climbing or Burrowing. A Shark may perform Tumbling while swimming. A shark may also perform a Charge move while swimming. A shark, in turn, could not perform tumbling while Climbing. A spider may perform tumbling while climbing. It may perform a Charge while climbing. It may also perform both actions while walking. Etc. Etc. I didn't really believe it had to be spelled out. But there you go. Tumbling as part of "normal" movement means whatever is natural and normal for that particular creature. If a form of movement is natural to you, you can perform Tumbling. You may also Charge in that form of movement. But you cannot do both.
Leilond 07-13-07, 12:22 PM	I didn't really believe it had to be spelled out. But there you go. Tumbling as part of "normal" movement means whatever is natural and normal for that particular creature. If a form of movement is natural to you, you can perform Tumbling. You may also Charge in that form of movement. But you cannot do both. And to make this more clear you find here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040608a Normal Movement: This is not a standardized game term, but the rules (and this article) use it to indicate times when a creature uses a move action to move up to its speed -- as opposed to running, charging, or performing some other kind of special movement. The fun things is that "charging" is one of the example of "not normal movement" Thus: Normal movement are FIRST OF ALL "move action" and then "not special" - Charging isn't a normal movement, because it isn't a move action and it is special - 5' step isn't a normal movement, because it isn't a move action... pheraps we can consider it "not special"... pheraps, but it isn't a move aciton - Crawling isn't a normal movement, unless your race has a crawl speed included - Swimming isn't a normal movement, unless your race has a swim speed included Normal movement is the simpliest move action: move on the grid up to your maximum speed using a move action Thus you cannot tumble in any situation that isn't a "normal movement" unless a special rule plain report the opportunity to do so
Elessar 07-13-07, 12:58 PM	You know, I hate to be so pragmatic, but the OP isn't a fellow player being annoyed by a charging tumbler... he's the DM. In response for his specific request for advice, my advice is just tell the guy "It's against the rules." If he tries to bring out a rulebook and show you how he can talk in and around the rules, say "Oh no no... you misunderstood me. Put the book down, I'm the DM. It's against the rules."
Metafictional 07-13-07, 01:49 PM	Of course, the one problem with this discussion is that nowhere in the PHB does it specify you cannot use Tumble while charging. All the sources for not being able to are, well, outsourced. Took a look at the Duelist, and this is what their Acrobatic Charge says (from the SRD): Acrobatic Charge (Ex) At 6th level, a duelist gains the ability to charge in situations where others cannot. She may charge over difficult terrain that normally slows movement. Depending on the circumstance, she may still need to make appropriate checks to successfully move over the terrain. Not a word about Tumble, Jump, or anything else. This means that if you're running a game just with the three core books, it's perfectly legitimate to rule that you can Charge while Tumbling. Sure, the FAQ spells out Jump, and material in the splatbooks seems to indicate that you need a special ability to Tumble and Charge, but these sources are completely optional. They have to be, since not everyone has access to them. WE have access to the FAQ because we have the internet, but it's not logical to assume everyone who plays DnD does. This is, unfortunately, a DM call. There is, precisely, no "official rule" that spells this out, just different interpretations. Because Acrobatic Charge as possessed by the Duelist is written differently than the ability possessed by, say, the Drunken Master does not mean the Duelist's ability changed, nor does it mean the writer of the Drunken Master is 100% correct that you need a special power to Tumble while Charging. After all, I think someone already pointed out Tumble+Spring Attack, which if you allow that, but not Tumble + Charging, well, that doesn't make too much sense to me. You can argue about normal movement all you like, the truth is, again, this is a DM call. You can say that outside sources have persuaded you that Tumble + Charge is not allowed. You can say that you feel a -10 penalty can allow it. You can say it's not allowed, because you, as the DM, doesn't feel it makes sense, OR you can say that it's perfectly allowable because you saw it in a Jackie Chan movie. Note: while Jackie may play a Drunken Master, I don't think he IS one. Most probably, a Feat should cover this, since anytime you want to make an action that isn't spelled out by the rules, WotC makes a new Feat. LOL. Personally, if I wanted to get technical about why Tumble + Charge does not work, I would point this out: To gain the benefits of a Charge, you must move at double your currently allowed speed. The +2 bonus to hit is from momentum, if I remember how it's defined. Obviously, since Tumble reduces your movement by half, you are now moving too slow to charge. Mind, you, the -10 penalty should work, because moving double your speed is allowable with two move actions; Charge places the special restriction of head-on, straight-line movement and a -2 AC penalty to allow you to attack. It's perfectly allowable for the designers of the game to call out Charge as a special action that is not compatible with Tumble, whether or not it makes sense to us. I don't see that they have, the arguments to the contrary rely on PrC abilities in books the DM of a game might not even own, and he certainly does not have to allow ANY PrC to begin with. So by Core, at least, it's fairly obvious the designers left this in the hands of the DM. If, in you expanded campaign that owns multiple books, you feel that the designers have changed their position, or clarified it, you MAY deny Tumble + Charge. Or you MAY allow it. I don't think RAW adequately covers this topic for any Rules as Written or Rules as Intended debate to do more than irritate people. As intelligent adults, we should simply concede that the other side has a point, as do we, and since we can all intelligently argue this issue, we have to assume RAW is not clear, and that RAW does not cover this discussion. Therefore, to the OP, if you think it's fun to allow Tumble Charges, go for it! Your game, your rules, have fun. If you think it's overpowered, broken, or silly....don't allow it! Your game, your rules, etc. etc.. There exists no magic "Rules Demon" hired by WotC, who will come into your home and flip over your kitchen table screaming that you have violated the sacred RAW. Honest, I swear. And if someone gives you flak on the forums, you can always choose to ignore that person's posts. Now if WotC does spell out an official reply, you may use it. Or not. There's no reason your game has to be RAW. When 3.0 was created, many of the rules we now take for granted were based on house rules that people had been using in 2.0 games for YEARS. So consider that when you think that RAW trumps house rules. Sure, we've all seen goofy house rules, but every so often, we see one that makes sense, or clarifies a position better than even the finest team of game designers in the universe could do. So your game just went from 100% official, to 99% official. Oh noes! The horror! If it's fun, and you and your group enjoy the game, that shall be the extent of the rules.
Pentar 07-13-07, 02:08 PM	This means that if you're running a game just with the three core books, it's perfectly legitimate to rule that you can Charge while Tumbling. I disagree with this fundamentally. Charging allows you to move at twice your movement rate. Whatever form of movement you are using to perform the charge move must allow the same. Jumping does not adversely affect your total movement, therefore it does not apply to the situation of hindering your charge. Now, Dheran has pointed out the Accelerated Tumble at -20 which allows you to move twice your move in a Tumble. Given that particular situation, I would house rule to let you tumble into a charge, simply because that is a pretty difficult check pre-Epic and it does not seem game breaking. Sure, the FAQ spells out Jump, and material in the splatbooks seems to indicate that you need a special ability to Tumble and Charge, but these sources are completely optional. Even if they are optional, they can be used as sources to indicate the intent of the Designers. If these optional sources indicate that a special, Extraordinary class ability is required in order to Tumble and Charge, then it stands to reason that lacking this extraordinary ability, you cannot do it. This goes towards the intention of the rules, because you're right, the Core books don't have a line that says, "You cannot tumble and charge at the same time." However, it also doesn't say that "Characters must devote 15 minutes a day to void themselves or suffer a -2 bowel cramping penalty, cumulative per day". There are things we have to take as common sense. After all, I think someone already pointed out Tumble+Spring Attack, which if you allow that, but not Tumble + Charging, well, that doesn't make too much sense to me. It makes perfect sense! Spring attack is no different from a normal round of Standard Action + Move Action, except that you are allowed to take part of your move action before and after your attack. That is it. Fin. Spring attack is not a special move that gives you benefits and penalties above and beyond your normal attack options. It does not let you move at twice your movement rate. You do not incur a -2 penalty to AC for performing the move. It is a normal round of actions that breaks ONE convention and that is normally you cannot move both before and after your attack. Charge is a special move that is outside of the realm of normal actions. It is defined separately. Virtually all creatures are capable of this action in some form or another. Your suggestion that you can Charge into a Tumble because the books don't say you can't also means you agree to a Crawl into an Bull Rush, because the books don't say you can't do that either. But it seems sort of... silly, don't you think? Obviously, since Tumble reduces your movement by half, you are now moving too slow to charge. Mind, you, the -10 penalty should work, because moving double your speed is allowable with two move actions; Charge places the special restriction of head-on, straight-line movement and a -2 AC penalty to allow you to attack. It's perfectly allowable for the designers of the game to call out Charge as a special action that is not compatible with Tumble, whether or not it makes sense to us. I don't see that they have, the arguments to the contrary rely on PrC abilities in books the DM of a game might not even own, and he certainly does not have to allow ANY PrC to begin with. -10 isn't enough, that only allows you to Tumble to your full movement. You need a -20 to go any faster than that. Even then, Tumbling is not a "normal" form of movement, which is why I say it precludes Charging. If there was a creature who has a movement value of: 30'/Fly 60'/Tumble 40', then I would say that creature would be allowed to Tumble and Charge... because Tumbling is part of its natural movement. However, Tumbling is not natural movement for any standard playable race (in fact I don't think such a movement type exists anywhere). As such, it cannot be used to charge unless specifically given special abilities to do so. This whole time, people have been saying, "Charging is not normal movement; but what is normal movement"? I think we have clearly defined it.
The_Ditto 07-13-07, 03:07 PM	At this point, since Leilond is making arguments that were put forth and demolished about 50 posts back (tumbling requires a move action, crawling isn't "normal movement," etc.), my only response to them will be: "See above." And from the other side of the fence, I'll agree with you on this ... no new information being presented .. it doesn't help the overall issue .. :tiphat: And to make this more clear you find here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040608a Is that Rules of the Game? I'll have to check out the link when I get home ... but if so .. good catch .. that may be the quote needed to lynch this!! (and yep - new information!!) :cheer:
Pentar 07-13-07, 03:13 PM	Is that Rules of the Game? I'll have to check out the link when I get home ... but if so .. good catch .. that may be the quote needed to lynch this!! (and yep - new information!!) :cheer: Yah, it's from Rules of the Game. Here's a quote that's particularly choice: Half Speed: Some conditions, such as blindness or entanglement, force a creature to move at half speed. A creature reduced to half speed always moves as though its movement is hampered. (Each square costs 10 feet of movement to enter, and each diagonal costs 15 feet.) Creatures reduced to half speed cannot charge, run, or take a 5-foot step. Emphasis mine.
EvilVegan 07-13-07, 03:19 PM	The special ability to tumble while charging is for terrain features only, such as to tumble under a table to charge someone or jump over it, it doesn't specifically refer to tumbling to avoid AoO. Charge Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move. Movement During a Charge You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.) If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent. You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge. If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn. Nothing TERRAIN related can hinder your movement normally, if there is Terrain that requires a tumble check to avoid you can do so with acrobatic charge. Acrobatic charge lets you ignore terrain. It has nothing to do with allowing tumble in normal, terrain free conditions, such as to avoid AoO. You can still charge if your movement is hampered through non-terrain means, such as a slow spell, so that doesn't exclude the use of tumble due to it "hampering" movement. Tumbling is part of "normal movement". Thats it. It takes more movement (2:1) to do it, but it isn't hampering anything and as long as you have line-of-sight and a straight line and are charging the closest target there is nothing other than the "action" portion of the skill saying it is part of a "move action", Yet you can do it as a reaction to falling, which isn't specifically a "move action" either. So I think its definitely arguable either way, but I'd side more with the Yes you can tumble-charge as long as you meet the other requirements for a charge. I might give the -10 for tumbling at full speed.
zorgling25 07-13-07, 03:19 PM	Yah, it's from Rules of the Game. Here's a quote that's particularly choice: Emphasis mine. Well, I guess the Rules of the Game cinches the case.
Pentar 07-13-07, 03:22 PM	The special ability to tumble while charging is for terrain features only, such as to tumble under a table to charge someone or jump over it, it doesn't specifically refer to tumbling to avoid AoO. Nothing TERRAIN related can hinder your movement normally, if there is Terrain that requires a tumble check to avoid you can do so with acrobatic charge. You can still charge if your movement is hampered through non-terrain means, such as a slow spell, so that doesn't exclude the use of tumble due to it "hampering" movement. Incorrect. See the Rules of the game article as linked above, or see my quote on "Half-Moves". Cheers!
The_Ditto 07-13-07, 04:20 PM	Well, I guess the Rules of the Game cinches the case. I concur .. I think that gives the extra quote in a solid enough way ... unless there's another quote that hasn't been brought up before? When/If I get a response from Cust Serv to the question I posted, I'll post it here anyway ... (and point out the RoG article for them when they answer .. see if they referred to it or not .. hehe) :tiphat:
EvilVegan 07-13-07, 04:34 PM	Incorrect. See the Rules of the game article as linked above, or see my quote on "Half-Moves". Cheers! Your post on "half-moves" was incorrect. Tumbling doesn't reduce your movement to half, it takes twice as much movement to get where you're going. Mathematically they are similar, but not identical. A creature with a 30 speed can tumble 15'. A creature with a 30 speed reduced to half movement can walk 15'. Completely different. Tumbling is not a condition, it is a feature of movement you choose to activate. Specifically you move at one-half speed as part of normal movement, not you are reduced to half-speed. You only move at one-half speed while tumbling (so only for the relevant squares). Or does the -10 penalty to tumble checks let you do charge normally (while tumbling), since it doesn't "reduce your movement" as you claim it does (which it does not)?
Metafictional 07-13-07, 05:24 PM	Here's one for you. Can you Move Silently while Tumbling and/or Charging?
zorgling25 07-13-07, 06:14 PM	Here's one for you. Can you Move Silently while Tumbling and/or Charging? Yes, because the rules explicitly say you can move silently while charging at a -20 penalty.
zorgling25 07-13-07, 06:15 PM	Completely different. Tumbling is not a condition, it is a feature of movement you choose to activate. Specifically you move at one-half speed as part of normal movement, not you are reduced to half-speed. You only move at one-half speed while tumbling (so only for the relevant squares). Or does the -10 penalty to tumble checks let you do charge normally (while tumbling), since it doesn't "reduce your movement" as you claim it does (which it does not)? Read the Rules of the Game article. It defines normal movement. Tumble's description explicitly says you can only tumble as a part of normal movement. Before, this point was ignored since we didn't have a clear definition of normal movement, the argument is over.
calvinNhobbes 07-13-07, 08:45 PM	Good to know about that RotG article.... So I can BAN it from my games and thereby allow my players to continue to tumble while charging! :D I prefer to encourage players to be creative not hamstring them with rules lawyering. Give them the -10 or -20 or whatever, but at least let them try.
Tolby 07-13-07, 09:17 PM	I would allow them to charge while tumbling. Especially with the -10 tumbling check. After all what could it hurt.
Irving 07-14-07, 01:12 AM	If you permit it, that means that someone can charge directly through a line of bodyguards to a caster or other soft target without being impeded. Pretty important.
ScipioX 07-14-07, 04:26 AM	If you are going to allow tumbling while charging, you should definitely apply the -20 penalty. When charging, you are in essence running for 1 move action, and then taking your attack. So any tumbling that happens along the way needs to take the -20 penalty for tumbling while running. The -10 penalty is for tumbling while moving at normal speed. Charging is clearly faster than normal speed.
Dheran 07-14-07, 08:02 AM	Look, Veg, Dheran, let's consider this definition of "normal" movement. Normal movement is the type of natural movement that a creature can perform without hindrance. Thus, a human can perform Tumbling while walking/running on solid ground. However, a human could not perform tumbling while Swimming, Climbing or Burrowing. A Shark may perform Tumbling while swimming. A shark may also perform a Charge move while swimming. A shark, in turn, could not perform tumbling while Climbing. All perfectly reasonable. If a form of movement is natural to you, you can perform Tumbling. You may also Charge in that form of movement. But you cannot do both. Huh? How do you get this conclusion? This is like saying that you can charge during your turn, and you can talk during your turn, but you cannot charge and talk at the same time. You haven't connected the dots between this definition of "normal movement" and why you think tumbling and charging are incompatible.
Dheran 07-14-07, 08:19 AM	And to make this more clear you find here Rules of the Game: All About Movement (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040608a) Normal Movement: This is not a standardized game term, but the rules (and this article) use it to indicate times when a creature uses a move action to move up to its speed -- as opposed to running, charging, or performing some other kind of special movement. The fun things is that "charging" is one of the example of "not normal movement" Yes, but so is "running" and we know that you can Tumble because WotC says so in Complete Adventurer. So the RotG article is wrong in this respect, at least. Thus: Normal movement are FIRST OF ALL "move action" and then "not special" No, Leilond. You continue to ignore the WotC rules that also allow you to Tumble in the following situations: running during a 5' step Neither of these are move actions. And if running is some form of "special movement", as the RotG article states, then you can Tumble during special movement forms. Thus both of your claims are disproven.
Irving 07-14-07, 08:45 AM	All perfectly reasonable. Huh? How do you get this conclusion? This is like saying that you can charge during your turn, and you can talk during your turn, but you cannot charge and talk at the same time. You haven't connected the dots between this definition of "normal movement" and why you think tumbling and charging are incompatible. Becuase the RotG specifically says that "tumbling is a part of normal movement", which is also defined in the RotG article as, well, moving normally.
Irving 07-14-07, 09:08 AM	You know what? I'm getting a little tired of trying to disprove a negative here. Every time that evidence is presented that tumbling is not permitted during a charge, someone tries to overparse or weasel out of it. So, I'm turning it around. Prove the positive. Show me where, in the description of the Tumble skill or the Charge action, tumbling is specifically permitted. If your contention is that, since it's not mentioned in either, it's allowed, demonstrate that tumbling is permitted in all cases where it is not specifically disallowed. Then we can continue the conversation.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 10:02 AM	If you permit it, that means that someone can charge directly through a line of bodyguards to a caster or other soft target without being impeded. Pretty important.No you can't. The rules of charge prohibit this. The only use for tumbling while charging that is available with RAW is to avoid AoO while moving through threatened but otherwise unoccupied squares. See: You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.) It specifically states that you cannot charge through other creatures. There is nothing in tumble that specifically overrides this rule. I would further like to point out that the rules for charging specifically say that it has tight restrictions on movement and then proceeds to list all of the restrictions on charging movement and none of the restrictions include tumbling. The rules for charging movement also don't mention the capability of making Jump checks during a charge, but no one is arguing the validity of Leap Attack. Just because it doesn't state "You can tumble or jump while charging" it doesn't mean you can't. And while we're acknowledging that you can use the Jump skill on a charge, I would also like to point out the "Action" portion of the Jump skill: "A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action." And then the tumble section on "Action": "A Tumble check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action." If it bothers you that they're using 10' of movement to move 5', (but are still meeting 100% of all restrictions on charging movement) then apply the -10 penalty for tumbling at your full speed. Or don't allow leap attack. Also can you tumble while performing the withdraw or run action? Both are special full-round actions as a charge is, and both are not considered "move actions" nor "normal movement". Also, I just finished reading over the Rules of the Game article you linked to. First of all, it specifically mentions tumbling 0 times. Secondly if it proves what you think it proves, then you cannot tumble while running, withdrawing, or charging. Also, Tumble does not state it is "part of normal movement" it says it is "included in your movement", that is to say any time you move you can tumble. You can tumble while jumping, swimming, climbing, burrowing, flying, etc. You can't tumble while prone because you can only crawl 5 feet as a move action (and don't have the 10' necessary to tumble). You can't tumble as a 5-foot step, again because you can't use the necessary 10' to do so (typically). Cheers.
calvinNhobbes 07-14-07, 10:22 AM	If you permit it, that means that someone can charge directly through a line of bodyguards to a caster or other soft target without being impeded. All I have to say to that is, so what! The tumbler can do this anyway without needing to use the charge action. All charging does is give them a +2 attack bonus. In addtion, if you give the -10 or -20, that means a DC of 25 or 35. A rogue or monk wouldn't be able to consistently make those DCs until mid to high levels. So the tumbler gets a chance of a +2 attack bonus on an attack they could make anyway without charging. Who cares! The party wizard can cast timestop or whatever other overpowered 9th level spell to end the encounter. Or the druid can unleash a combat ending full attack in whatever super buffed abusive form they happened to be in. I really don't see the problem at all. Allowing tumbling while charging does not unbalance the game. If anything it makes it more balanced. In addition, it also makes it more fun by giving players options.
The_Ditto 07-14-07, 11:53 AM	Ok, got a response back from Cust Serv ... a bit . uh ... "terse" .. so I've followed up asking hiim for support to the answer ... :tiphat: Ok ... I'm baffled .. I'm SURE I saw this in an FAQ or something ... somewhere ... if it does, please point me to it. The basic rules state: Charge - straight line only - not if movement is hampered. Tumble - 1/2 speed (or full speed with -10) - not if movement is hampered. - part of normal movement Jump - part of movement Crawl - 5' only as move action The FAQ clarifies that you can Jump + Charge It also suggests you can Tumble + Crawl. Question is: Can you Tumble + Charge .. Why? or Why not? the 2 arguments are: 1) Yes - since you can Jump + Charge ... therefore you can Tumble + Charge 2) No - since Charging is not "normal movement" .. I'm sure I saw something by the Sage or FAQ or something that answered this .. but I can't for the life of me find it .. Thanks!! Elementalist, Thanks for writing. Unfortunately, you cannot use tumble with charge, unless you have a specific ability that says you can. Please let me know if you need anymore help! Good Gaming! I have followed up asking for rules support to the answer .. *sigh* ... I'll post when they respond ... :tiphat: Yes, but so is "running" and we know that you can Tumble because WotC says so in Complete Adventurer. So the RotG article is wrong in this respect, at least. Incorrect, The base rules say "normal movement" is not charging, nor running ... however, we have a specific ruling (somewhere?) which tells us, yes, you can Tumble + Run ... that specific ruling overrides the general .. There is no such specific ruling for Tumbling ... . And if running is some form of "special movement", as the RotG article states, then you can Tumble during special movement forms. Thus both of your claims are disproven. Of course you can ... only when its SPECIFICALLY called out It is for Run + Tumble it is not for Charge + Tumble It is for Jump + Charge Also, Tumble does not state it is "part of normal movement" Yes it does .. this will be the third time I post this quote: Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 01:05 PM	Normal movement is not a game rule and the rules of the game article is incorrect in its exclusion of certain actions. Normal movement is "movement anytime you move" which is anything from charging (you normally move while charging) to the withdraw action (you normally move while withdrawing) to jumping (you can perform a tumbling jump because you normally move while jumping). If normal movement only included "move actions where you move up to your speed" you could not tumble while performing the withdraw action. Is this a portion of your claim as well? Can we not tumble while withdrawing? Just because Skip incorrectly included charging in an example, doesn't mean it is correct. If charging restricted movement as you claim it does, it would need to be listed under the complete list of restrictions to movement it has in its description. Things that are movement that aren't normal movement are teleportation effects, etc. IE, you can't tumble while in the astral plane between locations during the instantaneous travel of a dimension door.
Pentar 07-14-07, 01:11 PM	It's such a classic situation of; "Show me where it says you cannot do this!" And when you show them; "Well that article is wrong!! Prove to me that it is correct!" The standard situation of gamers is that once they stick to an argument, they cannot, nay, will not be proven incorrect. Gamers cannot be wrong. The universe does not permit such a travesty. Regardless, those of us capable of reading and comprehending the English language and with a reasonable amount of common sense and respect for the fact that the Game Designers know what they're doing and are usually correct know the truth of this matter. You cannot Tumble into a charge without a special ability granting it to you. End of Story. The rest of you can pick at the words "normal", or "movement" or "the" until the end of time, and you are still wrong. The article proves it. The article is written by a D&D authority who is superior to your authority on the matter. Ergo, their words supercede your vain attempts to word-smith and weasel your way out of your own dead-end arguments.
Pentar 07-14-07, 01:20 PM	Just because Skip incorrectly included charging in an example, doesn't mean it is correct. If charging restricted movement as you claim it does, it would need to be listed under the complete list of restrictions to movement it has in its description. You'll forgive me, EvilVegan, if I take Skip's word on what is, or is not valid in the rules, over yours. Skip is a proven D&D author ... nay, practically the inventor of the latest version... And you... well, you post on a message board. Sorry - Mr. Skip Williams, one of the creators of D&D, trumps you.
kalstrand 07-14-07, 01:55 PM	Originally Posted by Rules of the Game: All About Movement Half Speed: Some conditions, such as blindness or entanglement, force a creature to move at half speed. A creature reduced to half speed always moves as though its movement is hampered. (Each square costs 10 feet of movement to enter, and each diagonal costs 15 feet.) Creatures reduced to half speed cannot charge, run, or take a 5-foot step. This has no effect on tumbling as long as I can make my check with the -10 for accelerated tumbling because my speed will no longer be reduced by half.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 01:56 PM	You'll forgive me, EvilVegan, if I take Skip's word on what is, or is not valid in the rules, over yours. Skip is a proven D&D author ... nay, practically the inventor of the latest version... And you... well, you post on a message board. Sorry - Mr. Skip Williams, one of the creators of D&D, trumps you. Only with regards to you. Truth is still trumped by fact. I take it you believe you cannot tumble while withdrawing. There is no other logical conclusion from your premises.
Irving 07-14-07, 02:01 PM	There are no "facts", only game rules. Is it a "fact" that punches below the belt don't count, or is it a game rule of boxing? Mr. Skip Williams writes the game rules - specifically, these game rules - for a living. Ipso facto, his authority trumps yours, unless you simply say it's house rule out your table that you can, in which case we're done arguing. But stop saying that it's supported by the text. It's not. Deal.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 02:23 PM	There are no facts? Hm, that's an interesting opinion and it may be why you're wrong. I'll also group you in the "can't tumble while withdrawing" crowd. Also, I never said it wasn't supported by the rules, I said your position isn't the only one supported by the rules, that the conclusions you are drawing from your premises are untrue, and that I rule in favor of being able to tumble through unoccupied squares in order to avoid AoO, because charging is very clear on what it limits and doesn't include jump or tumble in its restrictions (and jumping is allowed).
Metafictional 07-14-07, 02:40 PM	And we're still at zero. It seems to be fairly clear that there is nothing in the rules that specifically prevents Tumble during a Charge. However, other Skills, such as Move Silently are allowed, and Jump, thanks to the FAQ. Later books added a special ability that allows Tumble during a Charge...more or less. It's no longer a debate of whether or not you can Tumble using Charge; all the official sources point to no. The debate, is, why? I mean, you can freakin' Move Silently, while Jumping through the air, Charging headlong towards your opponent. But you can't throw a few tumbles in there, or even Drunken Monkey Roll along the ground (unless you are a Drunken Master, of course). Other than a tacit omission of the possibility, there is no stated reason why you cannot Tumble and Charge, and you can't reach the answer on your own logically, save by stating "it's not mentioned, so it must not be allowed". Of course, as has been pointed out, Jump wasn't mentioned either save in the FAQ, but that's them coming back and saying "oops, yes, you can do this". Rather than saying "oops, we made a mistake with Tumble", they published the Drunken Master. Even if you were supposed to be allowed to Tumble while Charging, the existence of Acrobatic Charge abilities ensures they will not change their stance on this. Despite, of course, Acrobatic Charge being tacitly better than a -10 or -20 Tumble check; at high levels of play, penalties don't matter as much. So I think that's it, really. Tumble would have been an option, but Complete Warrior drove a nail into the coffin, and since that was the first time the rules on the subject were defined, WotC is sticking to it. I still, however, fail to see the harm in houseruling the ability to exist, PrC's are optional anyways.
Irving 07-14-07, 02:45 PM	Rules of the game are not facts. The earth is round? That's a fact. Yout critical hit with a battleaxe on a 20? That's a game rule. I eagerly await a viedo of you personally charging into combat with an orc while turning handsprings. Then "you can charge while tumbling" is a fact. Until then, we're talking about game rules... and mcuh like the umpire is always right in baseball, the game authors (and the DM) are always right in D&D. You can argue with the ump all you want, but it never, ever changes the call.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 02:58 PM	Rules of the game are not facts. The earth is round? That's a fact. Yout critical hit with a battleaxe on a 20? That's a game rule. It is a fact that the game rule states that you threaten a critical hit on a natural 20 on a d20 roll. The rest of your post is meaningless.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 03:05 PM	And we're still at zero. It seems to be fairly clear that there is nothing in the rules that specifically prevents Tumble during a Charge. However, other Skills, such as Move Silently are allowed, and Jump, thanks to the FAQ. Later books added a special ability that allows Tumble during a Charge...more or less.Just wanted to point out that these specifically allow you to charge through squares that you normally couldn't tumble through due to terrain, or due to creatures/obstacles blocking your path, and make no mention of being able to tumble in order to prevent attacks of opportunity. (Referring to acrobatic charge) The reason it does not specify that you can tumble in order to prevent attacks of opportunity with acrobatic charge is because you can do so normally, without acrobatic charge. It's no longer a debate of whether or not you can Tumble using Charge; all the official sources point to no.This is 100% untrue. I have seen absolutely no instance of an official source quoted in this thread or in my own readings that disallows tumbling on a charge. The rest of your points are moot by believing the conclusions the other people reached incorrectly to be fact. They draw on semantic arguments that convert "tumble" into a "condition that hampers movement" (which it is not, as these are standardized game concepts that would need to be specified in the tumble description) and that "charge" does not involve "normal movement" because it does not use the "move action", even though "Withdraw" is also a special full-round action that does not use "normal movement" because it isn't using a "move action" and they have yet to counter this glaring inconsistency in their own logic. Instead they merely rely on "My source is better than you" without proving the validity and consistency of their own statements. In other words, they can't come up with something to say, so they try to make me look stupid. If Skip Williams said "You cannot tumble on a charge" after he posted his reasoning behind it I would accept what they are saying. As is they're drawing upon incorrect conjecture from unrelated material. Tumbling is not a condition. Tumbling does not hamper movement. Tumbling is not terrain or obstacles. Tumbling is not prohibitted by the normal movement restrictions associated with charging.
Pentar 07-14-07, 04:01 PM	Clearly, this is entirely pointless. We have hashed over the rules over and over again. We have found an article by Skip Williams, creator of D&D 3.0+ that has stated the Rules of the Game with regards to being able to Tumble and charge. Customer Service was emailed and they responded in no uncertain terms that you cannot tumble into a charge without a special ability. Those who refuse to believe this are too invested in their argument to admit they are wrong now. To do so would mean they have lost and we know that gamers cannot lose. I submit that we let them live in the world where Official D&D rules are what they want it to be, and leave the rest of us who actually are willing to take the word of the Creators of The Game as being correct, to play by the actual rules. House rule as it pleases you, but RAW is now clear. There is no argument. Everything Vegan, etc. are saying is just their own blathering of wilfull misinterpertation, word-smithing and rules lawyering. You cannot debate with people who can point blank say to you "I don't care if the creator of the game says I'm wrong... He's wrong and I'm right". What logic or counter argument can we offer here? They simply say the world is flat. We cannot convince them otherwise. Let it die.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 04:43 PM	Clearly, this is entirely pointless. We have hashed over the rules over and over again. We have found an article by Skip Williams, creator of D&D 3.0+ that has stated the Rules of the Game with regards to being able to Tumble and charge. Customer Service was emailed and they responded in no uncertain terms that you cannot tumble into a charge without a special ability.Oh? I saw no mention of tumble in RoTG. That means you are interpretting things based on non-standard suggestions of what the rules should be, not what they are. Skip even said there is no standard ruling of what "normal movement" is. As for relying on Customer Service, thats a laughable source with slightly more credibility than asking a 4 year old child you ran into at the grocery store. This is initially obvious from the fact that they barely read the question that they answered, otherwise they may have answered all of the questions posed to them. Those who refuse to believe this are too invested in their argument to admit they are wrong now. To do so would mean they have lost and we know that gamers cannot lose. I submit that we let them live in the world where Official D&D rules are what they want it to be, and leave the rest of us who actually are willing to take the word of the Creators of The Game as being correct, to play by the actual rules. House rule as it pleases you, but RAW is now clear. There is no argument. Everything Vegan, etc. are saying is just their own blathering of wilfull misinterpertation, word-smithing and rules lawyering. You cannot debate with people who can point blank say to you "I don't care if the creator of the game says I'm wrong... He's wrong and I'm right". What logic or counter argument can we offer here? They simply say the world is flat. We cannot convince them otherwise. Let it die.Appeal to emotion much? I don't see a single logical or true statement in the above quote. You're blowing things out of proportion and ignoring things in favor of your own argument. You're even ignoring the fact that I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your conclusions are not correct for the reasons you keep stating. Specifically you stated that tumbling is a "condition that hampers movement", this is not the case. It is neither a condition, nor does it hamper movement. You did not refute this, you merely stated that I'm "a stupid gamer that can't be wrong". Its an interesting tactic, but ultimately futile. Anyway, here are the correct options: 1) You cannot tumble while charging, running, withdrawing, or any other form of movement that is not a normal mode of movement for you that is done with a move action. IE: You may only tumble while performing a "move action" to move up to your speed. Or 2) You can tumble while charging, running, withdrawing, or any form of normal movement. Running imposes a -20 to tumble check. Charging imposes a -10 penalty to tumble checks unless you move half your base speed or less in the movement portion of the charge including requiring 10' of movement to tumble 5', a 15' charge for a creature with a base speed of 30' would be fine without a -10 penalty because you are still moving up to double your base speed while still tumbling at a rate of 10' to 5'. BOTH of the above options are supported by the rules. If you choose one over the other thats fine. I will choose the one that lets people withdraw and still tumble, which happens to include the ability to tumble through empty squares while charging. If you want to logically show that you can withdraw and tumble or acknowledge the fact that your interpretation of the rules does not allow tumbling on a withdraw that would be great, otherwise quit spewing your drivel about me being an obtuse "gamer" who can't be wrong. Have you ever heard of projecting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projecting)?
Irving 07-14-07, 05:53 PM	Yeah, whatever. An official ruling has been made. You can insult the issuer all you want, but that's like spitting at the umpire in baseball - it doesn't change the rules a lick. A strike is a strike. The ump may be blind or dumb, but he's the ump, and the strike will stand no matter what. See, that's the other part of "game rules" and facts, the part you're refusing to acknowledge - When playing by the rules of a game, the arbiter's ruling is final. In a game, that's the DM. Here, it's the D&D articles (Skip William's piece) and Customer Service. If you insult or ignore those arbiters, you are simply no longer playing by the rules of the game. "Logic" has nothing to do with it. "Logic" dictates that you shouldn't be able to take three hits with a battleaxe and walk away, but D&D characters do. The rules are the rules, and the judges who make the ruling's word is final. Going outside those realms renders your argument invalid.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 06:54 PM	Yeah, whatever. An official ruling has been made. You can insult the issuer all you want, but that's like spitting at the umpire in baseball - it doesn't change the rules a lick. A strike is a strike. The ump may be blind or dumb, but he's the ump, and the strike will stand no matter what. See, that's the other part of "game rules" and facts, the part you're refusing to acknowledge - When playing by the rules of a game, the arbiter's ruling is final. In a game, that's the DM. Here, it's the D&D articles (Skip William's piece) and Customer Service. If you insult or ignore those arbiters, you are simply no longer playing by the rules of the game. "Logic" has nothing to do with it. "Logic" dictates that you shouldn't be able to take three hits with a battleaxe and walk away, but D&D characters do. The rules are the rules, and the judges who make the ruling's word is final. Going outside those realms renders your argument invalid.I'm not insulting Skip or you or any one else. Skip made no reference to tumbling. Customer service is a poor authority, you know it, and I stand by my derision of Cust Serv responses. Their responses are poorly worded tripe and they rarely answer anything you actually ask. An appeal to authority only works if that authority is a reliable authority. History has fully shown that cust serv is not a reliable authority on what rules actually say. Skip is 1 author out of many, I put much stock in what he says, but he isn't an infallible deity, he's a human being, and if his reasons for stating certain things don't hold up against his own logic I will hold him accountable. Logic can be applied in different ways, if you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge this then don't try to argue logic with me. If your only recourse is "if two people disagree with you, you must be wrong" please don't respond to me. But there have been several posts now where you've not posted whether you think you can tumble on a withdraw action. You've also ignored every other point I've made in favor of poking imaginary holes in my lack of reliance on "umpires" to tell me what is very clearly written in the player's handbook. Just answer the question. Can you tumble on a withdraw action? Nothing you've said invalidates my argument. You haven't even shown that you fully understand what my argument actually is.
EvilVegan 07-14-07, 07:18 PM	Let me put it in a different post so you don't miss it, here is my argument: If this . . . Normal Movement: This is not a standardized game term, but the rules (and this article) use it to indicate times when a creature uses a move action to move up to its speed -- as opposed to running, charging, or performing some other kind of special movement.. . . is the reason you think you cannot tumble during a charge then, among other things, the following claim also becomes true: You cannot tumble as part of a withdraw action. If this is true for your games then thats fine, your games are logically consistent with the rules you choose to adopt as you choose to interpret them. That is why I've been asking you your stance on tumbling during a withdraw action. I know what the logical conclusion is from your other posts and premises, I just want you to acknowledge it. So far you've done nothing but talk about umpires and ignore me. Is there a reason for this? Personally I go the other route and don't need Skip to hold my hand and tell me how to read things. Tumble uses the same standardized language as jump and you can jump as part of a charge. "Normal movement" is not a standardized concept within D&D. It could mean mundane, non-extraordinary, non-spell like, it could mean anything. Skip chose to define it one way, but he did so while admitting it wasn't codified. Also, everything required/restricted by a charge is already listed in the charge description. It doesn't say you can fly/jump/swim/climb while charging, but we know you can, just as I know that you can tumble to avoid AoO while charging because it isn't restricted in the list of charging restrictions. Normal movement could simply be "moving with a movement mode that you have a speed in such as fly 100' or climb 30' " which makes a more sense than "movement as part of another action that is specifically a move action".
Pentar 07-14-07, 08:17 PM	Whatever dude, I have been on this thread for far longer than it should have been alive for. I don't even need to link you the number of times I've fully admitted to being wrong on these boards. I'm just calling you out as another one of those type-a personalities that despite blatantly obvious facts, refuse to acknowledge that the sky is in fact blue. Take what you will from it, but the more sensible of us are bowing out of this retardedness. Good day.
Irving 07-14-07, 11:12 PM	I'm not going to bother trying to argue logic with you, Vegepygmy. I've seen you misread my posts so many times that I've got no faith you'll listen to anything I say. We've gotten an answer from multiple sources. If you want to ignore the author of the books, Customer Service, and several supplements, so be it. I've got better things to deal with than you being trollish.
Metafictional 07-14-07, 11:42 PM	The guy is only trying to make logical sense out of the rules. No reason to be insulting about it. Figuring out why something works the way it does instead of just accepting "Rules because we say so" is a perfectly legitimate method. He's posed a logical question to. If Tumble is only allowed during "normal" movement, and Withdraw is not "normal movement", then Tumble during Withdraw wouldn't be possible. So obviously, there's a missing indicator, since some Tumble outside of "normal movement" is legit. If you're happy with Cust Serv rulings, and feel that Skip handled this topic, then you don't have to respond, that's fine. But saying "I think you're being obtuse and/or trolling" as you leave the debate isn't very mature. You have your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong. But look at how much has been accomplished because of people who ask "why" and don't take things at face value. So I support the attempt. Myself, yes, I allow Tumble during Withdraw. I feel Tumble is meant to be a more defensive-oriented skill. Charge is not a "defensive" action, so that's one reason to not allow Tumble and Charge. Is that the actual reason? I have no idea, that's my opinion. Honestly, if someone wants to Tumble and Charge, I have no problems letting them, since it won't break anything, or if it did, I'm comfortable that in my games, I could handle it.
EvilVegan 07-15-07, 08:29 AM	Whatever dude, I have been on this thread for far longer than it should have been alive for. I don't even need to link you the number of times I've fully admitted to being wrong on these boards. I'm just calling you out as another one of those type-a personalities that despite blatantly obvious facts, refuse to acknowledge that the sky is in fact blue. Take what you will from it, but the more sensible of us are bowing out of this retardedness. Good day.Again you ignore what I've said, insult me, and won't answer a simple question. Can you tumble on a withdraw action? I'm not going to bother trying to argue logic with you, Vegepygmy. I've seen you misread my posts so many times that I've got no faith you'll listen to anything I say. We've gotten an answer from multiple sources. If you want to ignore the author of the books, Customer Service, and several supplements, so be it. I've got better things to deal with than you being trollish.Again you ignore what I've said, insult me, and won't answer a simple question. Can you tumble on a withdraw action? Further more, I'm not Vegepygmy. He's a cool guy and all. It is becoming abundantly obvious to me that not only can you not recognize logical arguments you can't even take the time recognize who you are talking to. I assume from your responses that neither of you know exactly what you or I am even talking about. Its amazing how adamant you are in the false claim that I am being obtuse, while at the same time myopically ignoring the very clearly spelled out portions of my post that actually must be dealt with if your claims are true. I'm not even saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying that if you are right one additional minor point becomes true and requested you acknowledge this fact. If you don't want to deal with your own problems, that's fine, but again you are both projecting your faults on to me without any sort of reliance on logical argument. I have now sent a private message to both of you requesting an answer to my simple question. Please respond in whatever manner you feel appropriate, or ignore it as you have so many times up to now. And if you like you can even reply back with more baseless crap stating that I'm ignoring something that I am not.
Irving 07-15-07, 09:11 AM	And as I said in the PM, you're relying on a false delimma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). There is no reason that exceptions can exist for one rule, but not the other. I don't know if you can tumble while withdrawing. I don't care. It is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you can tumble while charging. Please do not PM me again.
EvilVegan 07-15-07, 09:28 AM	And as I said in the PM, you're relying on a false delimma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). There is no reason that exceptions can exist for one rule, but not the other. I don't know if you can tumble while withdrawing. I don't care. It is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you can tumble while charging. Please do not PM me again. Too late! :D It isn't a false dilema by the way. I'm not stating there is no reason there couldn't be exceptions to tumbling on a withdraw, I'm stating that there aren't exceptions to it. Therefore it still stands that you can not tumble on any full-round actions, including withdraw. If there were an exception it would be noted in the description of withdraw. If you want to tumble and withdraw you can't; instead you have to use the nearly identical option of a double move and simply tumble out of your first square. Why is that so (absurdly amusingly) hard to admit?
The_Ditto 07-15-07, 09:44 PM	as promised .. the "explanation" from Cust Serv .. There isn't a "more information" source as the evidence for this comes from the very nature of the ability Charge. In order to Tumble you must do it as part of a "normal move action". Charging is not considered to be "normal move action". If you want to get downright technical, charge is a "special attack" that happens to involve movement. Or as listed in the Player's Handbook Charge is a "full round special attack". Therefore because charge is not considered to be a "normal move action" you cannot tumble during it. That simply is the way it works as per the rules! Good luck and good gaming! (for what it's worth, this question thread I opened with them is reference # 070712-000132 .. I don't know how those work or if anyone else can view them ... *shrug* ) Take or leave it ... disagree or agree ... we now have about as an "official" ruling as one can get ... (this + RotG ...) ... you can disagree all you want I, personally, have disagreed with CustServ rulings in the past (and will likely disagree with some in the future ..) .. but this one I agree with, I think the rules are quite clear on it ... :tiphat:
G_Mancer 07-15-07, 11:54 PM	Tumbling is done "as part of normal movement". Charging can not be considered "normal movement" because: 1) It's a "special full round action" - which means that you have to consider "charging" as one thing. Not a collection of moves and an attack. It's a single entity. 2) The simple fact that it's "special" means that it's not "normal". 3) It's listed under the "Special Attacks" subsection in the "Combat" section. It's clearly an attack - not movement. I don't see how you can get around these three items. you are completely correct. Charge is listed under "special attacks" section in PHB. This means it is an attack action not a movement action. By taking a full round to "charge" you are able to move up to twice your land speed before your attack. Charge is NOT: by making a full round to move up to twice your land speed, you can make an attack at a <insert bonuses and penalties here>. it is a special attack, not a movement. you just happen to move to do it.
Metafictional 07-16-07, 02:43 AM	So Withdraw and Tumble are, by Cust Serv ruling, also a no-go. Well there you have it, if you accept Cust Serv as an authoritive answer. Have to admit the "Special Attack" comment makes a lot of sense, and is a pretty quick catch by Cust Serve.
Leilond 07-16-07, 03:51 AM	Ignoring the player's handbook is incredible The Player's handbook say that "a tumble check is part of a move action" You can argue how much you want for 100 years. The tumble check is and remain part of a move action Thus, unless a special rule permit you to do it during another action type, you can tumble ONLY during a move action It exist a special rule in the complete adventurer that let everyone tumble while running It doesn't exist any special rule that let everyone tumble while charging Some spelcia class features permit some special classes to tumble while charging Thus, you cannot tumble while charging because the player's handbook say so, unless your character class do not have that special class feature You can change things to be "more logical" or "more nice to you", but do not call it "rules"
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 08:31 AM	The wording you are referencing for Tumble matches the wording for Jump. Jumping is allowed while charging. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, I'm saying it isn't right for the reasons you just posted, unless you also reference the exception for Jump checks on a charge. Side note: I also just wanted to point out that pentar and irving have both insulted me and refused to answer my simple question on grounds that I'm being unreasonable and insulting. :rolleyes:
Leilond 07-16-07, 08:36 AM	The wording you are referencing for Tumble matches the wording for Jump. Jumping is allowed while charging. Only because it is plain written somewhere The fact that you can charge while jumping means only that you can charge while jumping, nothing else I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, I'm saying it isn't right for the reasons you just posted, unless you also reference the exception for Jump checks on a charge. You're saying that the player's handbook is wrong, without any errata or faq to support your point. I also just wanted to point out that pentar and irving have both insulted me and refused to answer my simple question on grounds that I'm being unreasonable and insulting. :rolleyes: And you say that to me? Did I insulted you?
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 09:59 AM	Only because it is plain written somewhere The fact that you can charge while jumping means only that you can charge while jumping, nothing else You're saying that the player's handbook is wrong, without any errata or faq to support your point.I'm not saying the PHB is wrong. I'm saying that it isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. Nothing in the PHB states that you can jump on a charge. Jumping is just as much a part of a move action as tumbling is according to the PHB. They are equal in their description of the "action" required to use them. You can jump on a charge. If that were the end of the argument it wouldn't fully show that you can't tumble on a charge, you need an extra ruling that supercedes the rules on jump checks. I think Leap Attack may be an exception to the rule, but I don't have the book on me and my memory isn't as eidetic as I'd like it to be. If it says "you may make a jump check as part of a charge" then it is the exception that proves the rule on tumbling charges. If it isn't an exception then it muddies the water a bit, so to speak. It doesn't prove you can tumble on a charge, it just doesn't prove you can't. And you say that to me? Did I insulted you?Of course not, you're quite civil :D. It was just a side note and I didn't want to double post.
Leilond 07-16-07, 10:21 AM	I'm not saying the PHB is wrong. I'm saying that it isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. "Tumble check is part of a move action" isn't clear? Nothing in the PHB states that you can jump on a charge. Jumping is just as much a part of a move action as tumbling is according to the PHB. They are equal in their description of the "action" required to use them. You can jump on a charge. Why did you say that? If that were the end of the argument it wouldn't fully show that you can't tumble on a charge, you need an extra ruling that supercedes the rules on jump checks. I think Leap Attack may be an exception to the rule, but I don't have the book on me and my memory isn't as eidetic as I'd like it to be. If it says "you may make a jump check as part of a charge" then it is the exception that proves the rule on tumbling charges. If it isn't an exception then it muddies the water a bit, so to speak. It doesn't prove you can tumble on a charge, it just doesn't prove you can't. Of course not, you're quite civil :D. It was just a side note and I didn't want to double post. Until you find a point in any manual that let you use a tumble while charging, the sentence "tumble check is part of a move action" in the PHB is a RULE Answer to this question Why do you say "you can jump while charging"?
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 10:32 AM	Because you can jump on a charge. I know you can. I know its legal. I don't have my books on me so I can't quote page number at this time. Leap Attack is in Complete Warrior, look it up if you will (please). It requires a jump on a charge, which wouldn't be possible if you couldn't jump on a charge. That FAQ also states that jumping on a charge is allowed and FAQ does not change rules, it merely explains them. (as far as I know, I'm going to go reread the faq) I'm still not saying this automatically allows tumbling on a charge, but since the language is identical for jump and tumble in the portion you are quoting it doesn't rule out tumbling as clearly as it should. There would need to be an exception to the jumping rule for the FAQ to be correct and Leap Attack to work in a way that doesn't also apply to tumble.
Leilond 07-16-07, 10:52 AM	So you know because "it is written somewhere but I'm not sure where" and because "a special power in a secondary manual let suppose you can do it" and because FAQ (that aren't official rules) let me do it but I don't remember where While you totally ignore an article on the wizard site (articles that are nor more or less official than faq) say PLAIN that you cannot do it (you recived the link, not "I remember it is written somewhere") Well... those doens't look like strong points
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 11:06 AM	Found the relevant portion of the FAQ (as it relates to Jumping): Can my character make a jumping charge attack? You can make a long jump as part of a charge. You must still follow all the normal rules for making a charge, such as moving in a straight line on the battle grid. This tactic can let you avoid some of the normal restrictions against charging. . . . furthermore, if you have to slow your movement at any point of the charge, you can't make the charge. This isn't new rules, this is stating that it is normally acceptable to make a jump check as part of a charge, furthermore he goes on to state that it overrides the very strict rules on charging through terrain that slows movement (by jumping over the terrain). And then there is this: Jump Action None. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. If you run out of movement mid-jump, your next action (either on this turn or, if necessary, on your next turn) must be a move action to complete the jump. And this: Tumble Action Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. So you see, the FAQ references no exception to the rules, simply states that the rules say you can jump even though the rules in the PHB clearly state it is part of a move action in 100% exactly the same way that tumble is. If the language is the same (it is) then the restriction is the same until an exception is quoted. There is no exception quoted so the restriction is the same. Jump allowed, accelerated tumble allowed. There are other rules that may disallow tumble, but this isn't a clear example of one. Also if tumble was only a part of a move action, how would you be able to react to a fall with a tumble check as a free action. The description of tumble invalidates its own restrictions.
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 11:16 AM	So you know because "it is written somewhere but I'm not sure where" and because "a special power in a secondary manual let suppose you can do it" and because FAQ (that aren't official rules) let me do it but I don't remember where While you totally ignore an article on the wizard site (articles that are nor more or less official than faq) say PLAIN that you cannot do it (you recived the link, not "I remember it is written somewhere") Well... those doens't look like strong points I'm not ignoring an article. I'm fully aware of the article and the reasons it disallows tumbling on a charge. It isn't the reason you are stating. The reason that article prohibits tumbling is not that tumbling is only on a move action (it isn't, you can react to a fall with a tumble as a free action). It is because tumbling to avoid attacks of opportunity uses the words "normal movement" and then Skip goes to define that as "taking a move action to move your speed", though it was previously undefined, and then further cites charge as an example of what isn't "normal movement", because it requires a full-round action. After my lunch break I will have my books, so please continue being denigrating to my position even though I'm being respectful of yours. Soon enough I will have the page number and reference material, but I am currently at work, so you'll forgive me if I don't get fired to find a page # for you. I told you the book and the feat, not a nebulous description of "something somewhere".
Leilond 07-16-07, 11:20 AM	Denigrating? My friend, I'm really really sorry if it looked like I want an argument with you! Realy, I apologise I was relaxing writing on the board and I totally missed that you were taking all this so seriously Sure, it wasn't my intent to denigrate anyone, and if I did it I will apologise one more time, and another one if needed I really hate people that create "flames" on forum and I really feel bad to be the one who did it Sorry again friend, really By the way FAQs contraddict the ROTG and none is more official than the other, both contains mistakes every now and then. They're interesting and usefull, I usually use them a lot, but when they contraddict eachother, I pass on for that issue Thus, you cannot use the first nor the second as "final answer", thus you remain with the PHB, the most official source out there, more official than PHBII and other optional manuals PHB say "tumble check is part of a move action", and nothing about "jump" can change this
sirkently 07-16-07, 11:23 AM	Let me add my two cents in here. The people who say you can tumble on a charge basically argue that since you can jump on a charge and tumble and jump use the same language regarding there actions, then logically you should be able to tumble on a charge. Seems logical to me. The people who say you can't argue that you can't extrapolate the jump ability to the tumble skill since it isn't explicitly stated anywhere. They believe that jumping while charging is only applicable to the jump skill because it was only written for that skill. Also a good argument. In my case, let me take a different track. For my argument I am going to postulate the following premise: The FAQ IS WRONG. The only reason this is an issue is because the FAQ came out and said jump was usable during a charge. But the FAQ has been wrong before and I believe it is wrong this time. Here is why: 1) There are certain prestige classes that explicitly allow jump and/or tumble while charging. This wouldn't be necessary if you could normally do it. 2) The Leap Attack Feat (which is in complete adventurer). This feat says you can combine a jump with a charge. This would lead me to believe that you normally can't, since if you could it should have been written "when you combine a jump with a charge. Therefore, by my reading of the rules, I would say you can't jump and charge, which would eliminate the argument for tumbling while charging. Having said that, I really wouldn't have an issue with a house rule that allowed it at a -10 or -20 penalty. I don't think it is really that big a deal.
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 11:29 AM	Denigrating? My friend, I'm really really sorry if it looked like I want an argument with you! Realy, I apologise I was relaxing writing on the board and I totally missed that you were taking all this so seriously Sure, it wasn't my intent to denigrate anyone, and if I did it I will apologise one more time, and another one if needed I really hate people that create "flames" on forum and I really feel bad to be the one who did it Sorry again friend, reallyNo need to apologize, it was a poorly constructed argument. I really don't have my books. :) By the way FAQs contraddict the ROTG and none is more official than the other, both contains mistakes every now and then. They're interesting and usefull, I usually use them a lot, but when they contraddict eachother, I pass on for that issue Thus, you cannot use the first nor the second as "final answer", thus you remain with the PHB, the most official source out there, more official than PHBII and other optional manuals PHB say "tumble check is part of a move action", and nothing about "jump" can change thisI did notice while reading the FAQ that it was a piece of crap. :D When I can look up leap attack and cross reference I'll get more info for you. As is I know its possible to jump on a charge with leap attack, but I need the exact wording to know if its an exception to the rule or it is worded that its completely legal to jump without the feat. If the later is true it makes the issue less clear, but still doesn't specifically allow tumbling. Really i'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to poke holes in your argument to make it more solid in the long run.
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 11:37 AM	1) There are certain prestige classes that explicitly allow jump and/or tumble while charging. This wouldn't be necessary if you could normally do it. 2) The Leap Attack Feat (which is in complete adventurer). This feat says you can combine a jump with a charge. This would lead me to believe that you normally can't, since if you could it should have been written "when you combine a jump with a charge. Therefore, by my reading of the rules, I would say you can't jump and charge, which would eliminate the argument for tumbling while charging. Having said that, I really wouldn't have an issue with a house rule that allowed it at a -10 or -20 penalty. I don't think it is really that big a deal.Well there we go. I'm still going to double check when I get a chance, but there are exceptions to move action only jumping. Personally in my campaigns you can charge up to half your speed tumbling all the way, or up to double your speed tumbling all the way with a -10 penalty, and you can run while tumbling with a -20 penalty. I'm not a fan of 100% impossible things, I'm a fan of difficult things. It doesn't make sense that a master of tumbling would be 100% completely unable to tumble while charging. It would be difficult, but nothing is impossible.
EvilIdiot 07-16-07, 12:05 PM	Actually great leap tells you can combine jump and charging gaining new benefits from that combo, if your movement meets the prerequisites. It doesn't say You can and, in addition, you get the following.... IMO charging and jumping sounds sensed (look at the picture of LeapAttack), while charging and tumbling doesn't. Tumbling is meant as something acrobatic, like grasping something while falling, preventing damage from falling and such things; while doing something like that, you would hardly manage to hit your foes.
calvinNhobbes 07-16-07, 12:21 PM	IMO charging and jumping sounds sensed (look at the picture of LeapAttack), while charging and tumbling doesn't. Tumbling is meant as something acrobatic, like grasping something while falling, preventing damage from falling and such things; while doing something like that, you would hardly manage to hit your foes. I think tumbling and charging make sense visually. You aren't tumbling into the opponent. You are just tumbling for part of the charge. Example: You run at a giant with sword drawn. The giant gets ready to clobber you with his club when you get into range. The giant swings, but you suddenly somersault forward, the giant tries to check the swing and redirect but you are too agile. You spring up from the roll with ease and continue the charge. Visually, it is just the same as a tumbling move action plus attack, just at a faster speed.
EvilIdiot 07-16-07, 12:50 PM	@calvinNhobbes: yes, it depends on how we intend tumbling/jumping in D&D and hypothetical situations. I've just noticed that while Jumping is described as included in s.o.'s movement, Climbing,Tumbling and such arent'; for what is worth I believe it's easier to charging&jumping than charging&tumbling (you need a -10 in fact) Moreover tumbling doesn't allow you to move as you would do with just charging, so, again, rules seem to suggest you can't tumble while charging
calvinNhobbes 07-16-07, 01:08 PM	I've just noticed that while Jumping is described as included in s.o.'s movement, Climbing,Tumbling and such arent'; I don't really agree with this statement. Climbing, like swimming and flying, is a different form of movement. Jumping and tumbling are modifications of movement, like running. for what is worth I believe it's easier to charging&jumping than charging&tumbling (you need a -10 in fact) Oh, I agree that tumbling while charging should be more difficult than when not charging or than jumping. The tumble and jump skills already note that tumbling is more difficult. Moreover tumbling doesn't allow you to move as you would do with just charging, so, again, rules seem to suggest you can't tumble while charging But for me, not allowing tumble while charging has nothing to do with logic or realism and everything to do with rules lawyering. That is fine if someone prefers or even likes restrictive RAW type games. But presonally, I think that is the worse and least fun way to play.
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 02:39 PM	Just wanted to clear up that Pentar agreed that you cannot tumble on a withdraw. Irving didn't care but never really answered the question. Both continued in their firm belief that I cannot ever be reasoned with because I don't view Skip as a deity of logic and I don't put 100% full stock in customer service responses. I thank them for their time and candor.
EvilIdiot 07-16-07, 03:09 PM	I don't really agree with this statement. Climbing, like swimming and flying, is a different form of movement. Jumping and tumbling are modifications of movement, like running. I was only referring to the exact phrasing of SRD, which may seem to address that. Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. None. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. If you run out of movement mid-jump, your next action (either on this turn or, if necessary, on your next turn) must be a move action to complete the jump. That is fine if someone prefers or even likes restrictive RAW type games. But presonally, I think that is the worse and least fun way to play. Agree
calvinNhobbes 07-16-07, 03:17 PM	I was only referring to the exact phrasing of SRD, which may seem to address that. Fair enough. I personally would consider "part of movement" and "included in movement" to be the same thing, but eveyone is free to interpret how ever they want.
EvilVegan 07-16-07, 03:29 PM	But they're both limited to "move actions" allegedly. Even though tumble is not restricted to a move action, since one aspect of tumble is a free action. Really it should have just stated "Action: None. A tumble check is part of movement or a free action as a reaction to a fall."
EvilVegan 07-26-07, 12:12 PM	Just wanted to bring up one more thing. I like beating dead horses. Type-A "gamer" personality and all. I was working on a character and found at least one example where it explicitly indicates that someone who works for WotC assumes you can tumble any time you move. "Sudden Leap ... Initation Action: 1 swift action ... You can make a Jump check as a swift action and move the distance determined by your check result. You provoke attacks of opportunity with this movement, and you must move in a straight line. As with any movement, you can attempt a Tumble check to avoid any attacks you provoke with this sudden leap. You can't move through enemies unless you succeed on the appropriate Tumble check." None of this states that this is an exception to requiring "Normal Movement" (as Skip defines it). Skip also said that you can tumble on a 5' crawl while prone as a DC 20 check for what that's worth. And the way he stated it seemed to indicate that he was using his brain to determine that it made sense to allow it, even though the rules don't explicitly state it, as opposed to being a rules lawyer to forbid logic.
Metafictional 07-26-07, 03:52 PM	"as with any movement..." Well now isn't THAT interesting! And there's not even a penalty given! Unfortunately the Cust Serv ruling that Charge is a Special Attack still makes this highly debatable. I mean, if it was really any movement, you'd be able to Tumble if someone Bull Rushed you, right?
EvilVegan 07-26-07, 04:16 PM	:D It does open up some strange doors. I mean, not only does it say "any" movement, but its a swift action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Its just a wierd ability.
Mojo_Rat 07-26-07, 10:11 PM	Two things, i had always gotten the impression that You couldnt charge in terrain where your movement is hampered. That was always the avantage offered by the swashbuckler and thief acrobat class skills. So if you are trying to charge while moving double movement -20? + any difficulty to actually avoid an oponent or terrain. Doesnt this essentialy raise the DC check to the stratosphere to the point where it does not matter weather it is legitimate tactic or not? and if somone gets a character to be regularly making dc 50+ tumble checks i do not think charging while tumbling is the the issue :P
zorgling25 07-26-07, 11:34 PM	Ignoring the player's handbook is incredible The Player's handbook say that "a tumble check is part of a move action" This thread should have been dead a long time ago. "a tumble check is part of a move action" is stated because "normal movement" is a move action. Its a clarification, not a rule. Since Rules of the Game defines normal movement for us, there is no argument any more. It says tumble is a part of normal movement in the PHB. Unless a skill trick/feat/class feature says otherwise, the only ruling you can make is that tumble can't be done while charging. Note that the Jump text does not mention normal movement.
EvilVegan 07-27-07, 11:41 AM	This thread should have been dead a long time ago. "a tumble check is part of a move action" is stated because "normal movement" is a move action. Its a clarification, not a rule. Since Rules of the Game defines normal movement for us, there is no argument any more. It says tumble is a part of normal movement in the PHB. Unless a skill trick/feat/class feature says otherwise, the only ruling you can make is that tumble can't be done while charging. Note that the Jump text does not mention normal movement. While we're noting things, note that the PHB ignores the PHB. Tumble ... Action Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action. Try Again Usually no. An audience, once it has judged a tumbler as an uninteresting performer, is not receptive to repeat performances. You can try to reduce damage from a fall as an instant reaction only once per fall. You'll notice that "Action" doesn't include the possibility of making a tumble check as a free action, only as part of a move action. This portion of the description of the skill invalidates itself within 3 lines. Its glaringly obvious that worshipping RAW is completely the best/only option EVER! Two things, i had always gotten the impression that You couldnt charge in terrain where your movement is hampered. That was always the avantage offered by the swashbuckler and thief acrobat class skills. So if you are trying to charge while moving double movement -20? + any difficulty to actually avoid an oponent or terrain. Doesnt this essentialy raise the DC check to the stratosphere to the point where it does not matter weather it is legitimate tactic or not? and if somone gets a character to be regularly making dc 50+ tumble checks i do not think charging while tumbling is the the issue Well, the DC for tumbling at full speed is only 25 (to avoid AoO) or 35 (to move through squares occupied by other creatures, only available with Acrobatic Charge). Tumbling at full speed is only a -10 to the check. But you do bring up a good point. Things should never be impossible, they should at most be very very difficult. Tumbling on a charge is neither beyond the realm of comprehension nor all that fantastic. It is also not overpowered in the slightest. If you have acrobatic charge you can charge through people, if not you can charge by people, and it simply allows you to avoid attacks of opportunity and attack. If your character is a tumbling specialist with acrobatic charge then there's a good chance your charge attack isn't going to be all that devastating. I'm sure it can be broken, but there is very little that can't in D&D and avoiding AoO by using your skills isn't exactly making my eyes bleed with the uber-ness. And really, how often is the situation going to arise that you have to charge someone through a mob of enemies that are all perfectly lined up between you and the target, but not in a way that obstructs the straight line you need to charge without acrobatic charge. Do your BBEG fights typically involve a fancy square-dancin' promenade? I really see no reason for all the opposition. I can see the argument for it not being 100% RAW, but I think Skip (and others) would probably rule that you can tumble to avoid AoO on a charge with an appropriate penalty.
EvilVegan 10-21-07, 02:15 PM	RESURRECTION! Rules Compendium states that tumbling on a charge is allowed. That is all. Thank you.