Post/Author/DateTime	Post
viscen 09-25-07, 10:55 PM	i always thought that a tumble check meant you could move through an opponets space. we were fighting wolves the other day and i wanted to tumble through the wolves. my dm always thought that tumbling through meant underneath the creature, and he didnt see how it would be possible with a wolf. instead my dm told me that i would have to tumble around the wolf, while i didnt have enough moves to tumble around the wolf and attack, so i would have to wait a turn. i asked why i couldnt tumble over the creature and he replied that it would require a jump check too. my jump check isnt that great, so i argued that you should be able to tumble through an opponets space. we argued back and forth, and finally he told me that regardless of the books rule, its now a house rule. now im wondering who was right about the check? and if i was correct, how can i explain it to my dm, without starting the arguement all over again. and also if i was wrong i want to apologize for making such a big deal about it.
Mock26 09-25-07, 11:17 PM	This is from the SRD: Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy. Check separately for each opponent. Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC. This is for specific move with a DC of 25, but it clearly states tumbling over an opponent is an option when using the tumbling skill. Also, gently remind your DM that tumbling is more than just doing somersaults along the floor. It also includes doing front flips, back flips, cartwheels, vaults, and other such gymnastic type moves. The description for the skill says you can use it in lieu of the Perform skill to attempt to entertain the local yocals, and if it was just rolling along the ground it would be pretty dull, don't you think? Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
FlikViktor 09-25-07, 11:22 PM	Ask your DM if he is 5ft wide. When he wonders what the heck your talking about, remind him a character takes up a 5ft space, so it makes perfect sense that you could tumble threw a person space. Not to mention if you look in the Player's Handbook, all you have to do is show him the Skill Tumble. DC 25 Tumble Check Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) As part of normal movement, provoking no attack of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you stop before entering the enemy-occupied space provoking an attack of opportunity from each opponent. There is a little more to the description but the bolded part is the important part.
Sunblast 09-26-07, 10:37 AM	In theory you could jump over your foes, but that's gotta be tougher than a tumble check. Perhaps your DM has never seen one of these tumbles? Have you ever played the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time? One of the moves in that game basically has you tumbling over your opponent by sorta running up and over them, usually while hitting him on the way down. Now, that has you going awfully high up in the air, but it works about the same way. It's not jumping, it's tumbling, though jumping can help (synergy bonus).
Some_call_me_Tim 09-27-07, 12:41 PM	Ask your DM if he is 5ft wide. Ummm. Maybe you haven't seen some of the people I game with.:rimshot:
Eerongal 09-27-07, 12:51 PM	RAW, you can tumble through any enemy's space you make your tumble check on, provided you can move the required speed to get all the way through it. Regardless of the creatures size, from diminutive to collosal, it doesn't matter for this. If it did, it would say so. And as pointed out, it includes going under, over, or around. Although, now i'm wondeirng how anyone could tumble through a gelatenous cube's square :P
Mock26 09-27-07, 01:35 PM	Although, now i'm wondeirng how anyone could tumble through a gelatenous cube's square :P I would rule that you cannot tumble through said cube's square.
Gargs454 09-27-07, 06:34 PM	now im wondering who was right about the check? Technically, the DM is always right. That being said, I would have ruled that you could go through the square if for no other reason than that the wolf would not take up the entire square. I do think though that in certain situations like the 5 ft. X 5 Ft X 10 ft. tall creature blocking your path, that a jump check would be appropriate since obviously there is no room to go through the square since the creature is taking up the entire space. That though would be a situation that I don't think the RAW anticipate.
Dragonsblood 09-28-07, 03:22 AM	Ask your DM if he is 5ft wide. Ummm. Maybe you haven't seen some of the people I game with.:rimshot: Maybe just ask if a wolf is 5' wide :p I'd probably bring up the gelatinous cube as a diplomatic concession. You should also point out that a DC 25 is not easy to meet unless you're high level. Logically and by the rules it's difficult to tumble through the square, but possible.
Another_Poet 09-28-07, 09:58 AM	I'd probably bring up the gelatinous cube as a diplomatic concession. I wouldn't. If you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over an ogre you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over a cube. They aren't gelatinous skyscrapers. A.
Eerongal 09-28-07, 10:09 AM	I wouldn't. If you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over an ogre you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over a cube. They aren't gelatinous skyscrapers. A. I would think with an ogre, you would go more under/around it (through the legs, etc). But really, that's all flavor. Although, now i wanna make a gelatinous skyscrapers, it sounds like 'fun'....
Radijs 09-28-07, 10:22 AM	Hmmm what would the CR of a jelly scyscraper be?
Radiun 09-28-07, 10:35 AM	Hmmm what would the CR of a jelly scyscraper be? That depends, is just a really tall gelatinous cube, or are you just stacking them one on top of another, hoping they don't tip over from a strong breeze? Now a gelatinous pyramid would be structurally sound ;)
Radijs 09-28-07, 03:06 PM	True. Still it would be a good EEK moment when that sucker tips over on you.
Mock26 09-29-07, 01:54 AM	I wouldn't. If you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over an ogre you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over a cube. They aren't gelatinous skyscrapers. A. This is a situation where common sense needs to be applied to the rules. The description for the tumbling skill says "over, under, or around the opponent." It doesn't clearly state how you tumble past an opponent, but I would take it as a progression of options in the order listed. If you can, you tumble over your opponent. If you cannot go over, you go under. If you cannot go under, you go around. I would add a house rule that states that ff you cannot go around, you cannot tumble. I think that the limit for going over something would be something of roughly equal size. But, it all comes down to common sense. By a literal reading of the rules one could argue that you could tumble over a titan. But, that is just ridiculous. It isn't even heoric, just ridiculous, as common sense would tell you.
Radijs 09-29-07, 07:52 AM	Tumbling over a titan isn't that hard. The action described by the succesful DC25 tumble against a titan: "You manage to grab the wrist of the titan just as he brings it upwards to swing again. At the high point you let go, slide down along his raised arm and jump off the creatures shoulders landing behind him your sword ready to catch the creature with a jab in the ankles."
Thubby 09-29-07, 10:55 AM	your DM is going against RAW with very little reason. a gelatinous cube i would agree, there is no free space to move through those squares. but unless wolves are now 5 foot wolf cubes, i don't see why you couldn't.
Serrin 09-29-07, 08:05 PM	Tumbling over a titan isn't that hard. The action described by the succesful DC25 tumble against a titan: "You manage to grab the wrist of the titan just as he brings it upwards to swing again. At the high point you let go, slide down along his raised arm and jump off the creatures shoulders landing behind him your sword ready to catch the creature with a jab in the ankles." I love it. DC25 tumble over a titan: You pull off crazy stuff the likes of which haven't been seen since video montages on YouTube of people playing Shadow of the Colossus like it was their full time job. DC25 tumble over a wolf: You run up to it, then step over it, then keep on running. Maybe you flip over it. Showoff.
Mock26 09-30-07, 12:36 AM	Tumbling over a titan isn't that hard. The action described by the succesful DC25 tumble against a titan: "You manage to grab the wrist of the titan just as he brings it upwards to swing again. At the high point you let go, slide down along his raised arm and jump off the creatures shoulders landing behind him your sword ready to catch the creature with a jab in the ankles." Again, this is a situation where people need to use common sense. It makes no sense that you would need to roll a 25 to tumble over a small kobold, and would also need a 25 to roll over a human, and would also need a 25 to tumble over an ogre, or a hill giant, or a titan, or an ancient red dragon, or even a monster standing 2,000 feet tall. If somone wants to be a slave to the rules that is fine, but I feel that even though this is a fantasy game it needs to be grounded in reality. Common sense needs to be applied to some of rules (such as this tumbling rule). I would allow someone to attempt to tumble over a titan but I would rule that it would be a DC somewhere around 35-40, or possible even higher.
Dragonsblood 09-30-07, 02:23 AM	I wouldn't. If you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over an ogre you can cartwheel, flip, or vault over a cube. They aren't gelatinous skyscrapers. A. Uh huh...and yet if I try the same thing with the jump skill over an unmoving wall, I need to beat a DC 32 to jump just 8 feet vertically, and that's with a 20 foot running start and no horizontal distance covered. 10 feet isn't even listed under the skill because it's ridiculous. Tumbling doesn't magically make a vertical 10 foot jump any easier. You're exploiting the rules. A typical gelatinous cube is 10 feet on a side and weighs about 15,000 pounds, though much larger specimens are not unknown.
Ddraiglais 10-01-07, 08:25 AM	I don't care if people find a thousand rules to prove your point. Your DM was right. You should never argue with your DM during a game. It's rude both to him and the other players in a party. It's appropriate to point out a rule, but if the DM says no, then it's no. What I'm saying is it's better to do it after the session or before the next session. That way you can find what you want in whatever books to back you up. It also shows maturity. DMs do not like to be argued with in the middle of a game. I bet you wouldn't have that house rule if you hadn't argued.
Radijs 10-01-07, 10:03 AM	Again, this is a situation where people need to use common sense. It makes no sense that you would need to roll a 25 to tumble over a small kobold, and would also need a 25 to roll over a human, and would also need a 25 to tumble over an ogre, or a hill giant, or a titan, or an ancient red dragon, or even a monster standing 2,000 feet tall. If somone wants to be a slave to the rules that is fine, but I feel that even though this is a fantasy game it needs to be grounded in reality. Common sense needs to be applied to some of rules (such as this tumbling rule). I would allow someone to attempt to tumble over a titan but I would rule that it would be a DC somewhere around 35-40, or possible even higher. But it is grounded in a reality. Action movie reality. The way I imagined it is if Legolas can climb all over a charging elephant then someone can climb over a titan like that with a good enough tumble check.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 10-01-07, 10:17 AM	I don't care if people find a thousand rules to prove your point. Your DM was right. You should never argue with your DM during a game. It's rude both to him and the other players in a party. It's appropriate to point out a rule, but if the DM says no, then it's no. What I'm saying is it's better to do it after the session or before the next session. That way you can find what you want in whatever books to back you up. It also shows maturity. DMs do not like to be argued with in the middle of a game. I bet you wouldn't have that house rule if you hadn't argued. This is poor DMing and can't always happen. There are many times when a situation arises that can't wait, or will have major consequences. I'm not advocating bring the game to a crashing halt every time that you have a rules disagreement, but you also shouldn't have to wait until after the session to have the discussion. In addition, depending on the group, they may not see each other much between sessions, or have opportunities to talk about it, or the DM may avoid D&D discussions outside the game. Sometimes the only time to talk about it is right when it happens.
RobbyPants 10-01-07, 11:26 AM	Ask your DM if he is 5ft wide. When he wonders what the heck your talking about, remind him a character takes up a 5ft space, so it makes perfect sense that you could tumble threw a person space. I agree. This is probably the simplest illustration. If the wolf were a 5 foot cube, I could see the DM's argument, but it's not. It's a wolf, not a gelatenoue cube. :P
Mock26 10-01-07, 04:21 PM	The way I imagined it is if Legolas can climb all over a charging elephant then someone can climb over a titan like that with a good enough tumble check. And there is the difference, Legolas didn't tumble over an oliphaunt. He climbed up one. Like I said up above I would allow someone to attempt to tumble over a Titan, but the number would be insanely high, because it would be a lot more difficult to tumble over a titan than it would be to tumble between his legs.
Radijs 10-01-07, 05:22 PM	He was still doing some pretty nifty stuff. I just don't understand wether or not it matters that you go over or under the titan. Mechanically you "move through his square" and bob's your uncle. The only diffrence is that if I describe it my way to my players they will go "WOW" enthousiastically and enjoy themselves just that bit extra.
deathbane 10-01-07, 05:36 PM	I don't care if people find a thousand rules to prove your point. Your DM was right. You should never argue with your DM during a game. It's rude both to him and the other players in a party. It's appropriate to point out a rule, but if the DM says no, then it's no. What I'm saying is it's better to do it after the session or before the next session. That way you can find what you want in whatever books to back you up. It also shows maturity. DMs do not like to be argued with in the middle of a game. I bet you wouldn't have that house rule if you hadn't argued. The DM is not always right, and if it might result in a PC death then the player should say something, and yes I am a DM. If someone can't handle being corrected, then maybe they should not be a DM. If the tumble thing is a houserule then it should have been mentioned before the campaign started. If he made the rule up in the middle of the campaign then he should have given a notice between the time he made the rule, and the next session. The only thing that seems rude is that the player got past one of the DM's monsters, and he could not take it so he is changing the rules. What shows maturity is accepting the fact that the player outsmarted you. To the OP: You can try, but if he does not change his mind then ask him for a list of house rules. There is nothing unreasonable about that.
Mock26 10-01-07, 05:42 PM	I just don't understand wether or not it matters that you go over or under the titan. Mechanically you "move through his square" and bob's your uncle. The only diffrence is that if I describe it my way to my players they will go "WOW" enthousiastically and enjoy themselves just that bit extra. And that is the difference between you and your players and me and my players. If I were to describe your example of tumbling over a titan they would go, "That's lame and stupid" and they would enjoy themselves even less. (Of course, this assumes they just wanted to tumble past him.) I'm not saying that either way is wrong or right, just that they are different. One of the most important aspects of being a DM is knowing your players, and we both appear to know our players quite well. As for the difference in going under or over a titan, to me it matters only if the player wants to try and go over the titan. If they just said they wanted to tumble through his square(s) I'd decide, based on the size of the target, whether or not they go through, around, under the target, or are unable to even attempt it. While I would make the decision for them I would at least embellish about how they did it, maybe describing rolling over one foot and propelling themselves under the other foot and just barely avoiding getting crushed by that second foot. But like I said, if they just wanted to use tumble and were only concerned about the end result I'll decide how they do it based on the creature. If, however, they specifically stated that they wanted to tumble over a titan I would then consider the titan's size, increase the DC number to make it a truly epic feat, and let them roll for it.
Ddraiglais 10-01-07, 07:54 PM	This is poor DMing and can't always happen. There are many times when a situation arises that can't wait, or will have major consequences. I'm not advocating bring the game to a crashing halt every time that you have a rules disagreement, but you also shouldn't have to wait until after the session to have the discussion. In addition, depending on the group, they may not see each other much between sessions, or have opportunities to talk about it, or the DM may avoid D&D discussions outside the game. Sometimes the only time to talk about it is right when it happens. The game has to be about more than rules. One of the DM's duties is to keep the game going smoothly. Rules arguments should come after the session. On these boards I've found so many whining players who seem to be min/maxing and rules lawyering, it's sick. I am a player and a DM. I save my arguments till after the game. Asking for a quick explanation or pointing out a rule quickly is one thing, but there is no room for arguing with the DM during a game. The DM is not always right, and if it might result in a PC death then the player should say something, and yes I am a DM. If someone can't handle being corrected, then maybe they should not be a DM. If the tumble thing is a houserule then it should have been mentioned before the campaign started. If he made the rule up in the middle of the campaign then he should have given a notice between the time he made the rule, and the next session. The only thing that seems rude is that the player got past one of the DM's monsters, and he could not take it so he is changing the rules. What shows maturity is accepting the fact that the player outsmarted you. The DM is always right. FYI PCs are sheets of paper with numbers on them. You can always roll up another one. Now if I thought that I had caused said death as a DM, I would probably do something for the new character to make it up to the player. Correcting and arguing are two different things. If someone has a rule handy that I didn't know about, then that's great. Most of the DMs I've encountered are pretty reasonable in that regard too. Arguing just ruins the game for everyone involved. Once a DM makes his decision, that should be final until at least the end of the session. I agree that it does seem that the DM was upset at getting outsmarted. That does say something about his maturity. I am not saying that he is a very good DM. I am saying that you don't stop a game to have rules arguments.
deathbane 10-01-07, 08:38 PM	........I am saying that you don't stop a game to have rules arguments. I understand now. I took your post as saying the DM can do whatever he wants because he is the DM, which is how "the DM is always right" is usually taken. I do agree that stopping the game is no good.
Gargs454 10-02-07, 05:29 PM	Unfortunately all players and DMs are human, which means that rules arguments during the game tend not to end well. I'll be the first to admit that I have made a lot of mistakes over the years as a DM. However, I do agree with the idea that when there is a disagreement as to the rules, a brief discussion is okay, but if it turns to an argument, then the DM should make a ruling and move on. As for me personally, what I generally do in a situation like this is make a ruling that is effective for the rest of the session. Then, I'll go and look it up (either on here or in the assorted books). At the start of the next session, I'll then let the players know the results of my research. As for a situation that might involve a player death, I'll admit that unless I'm pretty darn certain, I tend to side with the player. At the same time, my players have not abused this tendency.