PDA

View Full Version : Getting an AoO against tumble checks in 3.5



ghashxx
2009-11-12, 01:30 PM
So I just finished building a very fun looking AoO build Swordsage, only to realize that it's entirely defeated by tumble checks. So what possible method is out there for getting AoOs on people using tumble to move without provoking AoO? Pretty much any book is legal, though we don't actually use psionics.

Eldariel
2009-11-12, 01:37 PM
So I just finished building a very fun looking AoO build Swordsage, only to realize that it's entirely defeated by tumble checks. So what possible method is out there for getting AoOs on people using tumble to move without provoking AoO? Pretty much any book is legal, though we don't actually use psionics.

Thicket of Blades-stance from Devoted Spirit (two feats to pick it up). That's about it.

dsmiles
2009-11-12, 01:43 PM
Tumble is purpose-built to get rogues into sneak attack position without incurring AoOs.

Mongoose87
2009-11-12, 01:50 PM
Thicket of Blades-stance from Devoted Spirit (two feats to pick it up). That's about it.

Could dip one level of Crusader to pick it and some maneuvers up.

Eldariel
2009-11-12, 01:50 PM
Tumble is purpose-built to get rogues into sneak attack position without incurring AoOs.

And Barbarians, Rangers, Warblades, Druids, Clerics and company too. And Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics and company away without incurring AoOs as well.


Could dip one level of Crusader to pick it and some maneuvers up.

Or just Martial Stance it up. Either works just fine. Heck, even a Cloak of Devoted Spirit could pull it off, provided you have at least 1 Devoted Spirit maneuver to qualify.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-12, 02:16 PM
And Barbarians, Rangers, Warblades, Druids, Clerics and company too. And Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics and company away without incurring AoOs as well.
Not so much. Of those classes, only the Warblade has it as a class skill.

A DM merely needs to tinker with the environment a bit to make Tumble mostly for the specialists. Remember, things that increase movement cost (like difficult terrain) don't have the usual multiplication limits. How far are you going to Tumble at 1/8th speed?
Double Movement Cost

When your movement is hampered in some way, your movement usually costs double. For example, each square of movement through difficult terrain counts as 2 squares, and each diagonal move through such terrain counts as 3 squares (just as two diagonal moves normally do).

If movement cost is doubled twice, then each square counts as 4 squares (or as 6 squares if moving diagonally). If movement cost is doubled three times, then each square counts as 8 squares (12 if diagonal) and so on. This is an exception to the general rule that two doublings are equivalent to a tripling.

Eldariel
2009-11-12, 02:22 PM
Not so much. Of those classes, only the Warblade has it as a class skill.

DC15 is easy enough though.


A DM merely needs to tinker with the environment a bit to make Tumble mostly for the specialists. Remember, things that increase movement cost (like difficult terrain) don't have the usual multiplication limits. How far are you going to Tumble at 1/8th speed?

Eh, I'd still assume difficult terrain to be a minority, not majority; roads, dungeon floors, building floors, etc. are rarely difficult terrain. And ultimately, once flight comes into picture, you don't need to worry about terrain anymore; nothing prevents tumbling while flying.

Hyperion
2009-11-12, 02:25 PM
I always wondered if stand still would apply to tumble checks...seem it does:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Stand_Still

I probably would have an effect on a weapon that would slow down the opponent even further when hit.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-12, 02:37 PM
And ultimately, once flight comes into picture, you don't need to worry about terrain anymore; nothing prevents tumbling while flying.
Except wind, fog, precipitation, and anything else the DM decides qualifies as the aerial equivalent of difficult terrain.

Master_Rahl22
2009-11-12, 02:41 PM
Karmic Strike/Robilar's Gambit provide you with AoOs just because your opponent dared to hit/attack you.

Emmerask
2009-11-12, 02:50 PM
I wouldn´t worry too much about the very occasional enemy who tumbles past you. You have to take enough other stuff to make a viable Aoo build
(riposte (if your dm allows it), stormguard warrior, robilars gambit etc etc). If your dm from the point on he realizes that you focus on Aoo´s solely uses tumble monsters he is an arse ;)

Eldariel
2009-11-12, 02:52 PM
Except wind, fog, precipitation, and anything else the DM decides qualifies as the aerial equivalent of difficult terrain.

Sure, but RAW contains no obstacles qualified as aerial difficult terrain.

HailDiscordia
2009-11-12, 02:59 PM
Isn't there a Knight ability that lets you add your Knight level to the DC of tumble checks past you? Bulwark of defense or something? Of course this would necessitate taking a bunch of levels of Knight, which I don't think is the concept you are going for. Perhaps a DM would let you switch that in for an ability of similar power.

ghashxx
2009-11-12, 04:02 PM
I took two levels in fighter to nab some feats real fast like weapon finesse and the first of two feats to grab the devoted spirit stance "thicket of blades". Reading this I guess that would mean they provoke an attack of opportunity because it specifically states "any movement including a 5' step provokes AoO". This can be used in conjunction with other things like stand still, but stand still only works if you get an AoO. So in respect to anti-tumble it would only work when coupled with thicket of blades, and even then it's a measly reflex DC 10+damage that would have been dealt". This should be pretty easy for a dexterous character, especially since my strength is only 12.

I know how amazing tumble is for not provoking AoOs because I ran a guy concentrating on tumble. But I'm afraid of the DM saying thicket of blades doesn't work for tumble checks, so I'm looking for an alternative to that.

Darrin
2009-11-12, 04:07 PM
Not so much. Of those classes, only the Warblade has it as a class skill.


Any class with the Ride skill can swap it for Tumble with the Skilled City Dweller ACF in one of the Cityscape Web Enhancements (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a). Extremely useful for those 1-2 level Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger dips.


Sure, but RAW contains no obstacles qualified as aerial difficult terrain.

If a creature is unable to see due to heavy fog, clouds, darkness, etc., then movement is halved. That's sorta like difficult terrain.

AslanCross
2009-11-12, 04:15 PM
I think the best AOO martial adept build would be Knight 5/Crusader X. You get the Knight's class features that give enemies penalty to tumble and also get Thicket of Blades.

With your build, getting Thicket of Blades would still be a good idea.

Keshay
2009-11-12, 04:18 PM
Not so much. Of those classes, only the Warblade has it as a class skill.

The thing is, Tumble is probably one of the best skills to take as a Cross-Class skill (at least up to 5 ranks). 5 ranks in tumble gets you 2 extra ranks in Balance and Jump. So for 10 skill points, you get the equivalent of the expenditure of 16 or 18 points (depending on whether Jump/balance are class skills or not).

That's not a bad return on investment imo, and the reason I always take 5 ranks of Tumble regardless of class.

The only skill that has an even better roi is Bluff.

Telonius
2009-11-12, 04:26 PM
The only things that are going to reliably tumble past you are things that are not full casters and that are not wearing much armor. Rogues, Swashbucklers, Unarmed Swordsages, Monks, maybe Scouts, and that's probably about it. (If a full caster is tumbling past you, something has gone horribly wrong for that full caster). I honestly wouldn't worry too much about it.

Chrono22
2009-11-12, 04:34 PM
One of the knight base class's features turns the area you threaten into difficult terrain. If you find a way to extend your reach, this means that the DC to tumble to avoid AoO's increases by +5. It also means that enemies can't five foot step when near you.
If you wear steadfast boots, and have a grease x/day item, you can make it much harder for a tumbler to get past you.

crazedloon
2009-11-12, 04:48 PM
But I'm afraid of the DM saying thicket of blades doesn't work for tumble checks, so I'm looking for an alternative to that.

Well as far as RaW that is a "wrong" ruling however it seems like your DM may want your character to have a "weak" point so he will still be able to challenge you. Because beyond that there is no other way to stop tumbling

Mongoose87
2009-11-12, 04:59 PM
Karmic Strike/Robilar's Gambit provide you with AoOs just because your opponent dared to hit/attack you.

Between Robilar's Gamit, Thicket of Blades, Improved Combat Reflexes, Spellcasting Harrier, and a feat from Dragon, I have a Crusader who makes three attacks anytime some hits him approaches him, casts a spell near him, or runs away from him.

Person_Man
2009-11-12, 05:00 PM
Isn't there a Knight ability that lets you add your Knight level to the DC of tumble checks past you? Bulwark of defense or something? Of course this would necessitate taking a bunch of levels of Knight, which I don't think is the concept you are going for. Perhaps a DM would let you switch that in for an ability of similar power.

Yup (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109429). It's called Vigilant Defender. You add your Knight level to the Tumble DC. Bulwark of Defense forces enemies who start their turn within your threatened area to treat your threatened area as difficult terrain. (Also very useful). Along with Test of Mettle and Loyal Beyond Death, they collectively the best reasons to play a Knight.

However, it's unlikely that a DM would allow a Swordsage to steal/borrow a Knight's best class abilities.

If it's a low level build, you might want to consider caltrops (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Caltrops). With Quickdraw, you can draw them as a Free Action, and dropping any item is a Free Action. So within whatever Free Action limits your DM puts on you, you can quickly surround yourself with caltrops, and reduce their movement by 1/2 each time one successfully hits them. (Of course, you and your allies also have to deal with it). There are also Tanglefoot bags, Earth Devotion, Deepstone Sentinel, and various spells that create difficult terrain (and thus indirectly make it harder to Tumble).

You can also just kill your enemy in one round. That would stop enemies from using Tumble. Or if you can't swing that for whatever reason, a Grapple and/or Trip and/or Daze combo would work.

Myrmex
2009-11-12, 05:05 PM
Person Man, I really like how at the end of all your advice, you suggest that you just kill them in one round.

ghashxx
2009-11-12, 05:30 PM
and various spells that create difficult terrain (and thus indirectly make it harder to Tumble).

You can also just kill your enemy in one round. That would stop enemies from using Tumble. Or if you can't swing that for whatever reason, a Grapple and/or Trip and/or Daze combo would work.

Killing in one round would definitely be nice. Tasty single round deaths, how much I love thee.

Now about these spells that change the ground into difficult terrain or whatever. Is there any way by RAW to get something that would make the area immediately surrounding me (ie it travels with me) to be covered in grease or some other type of difficult terrain? I've never heard of such a thing, and I don't want a huge area to be getting hit, just a 5' or maybe 10' radius around me. And as for the level, I'll be entering at 12.

Darrin
2009-11-12, 06:18 PM
If it's a low level build, you might want to consider caltrops (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Caltrops). With Quickdraw, you can draw them as a Free Action, and dropping any item is a Free Action. So within whatever Free Action limits your DM puts on you, you can quickly surround yourself with caltrops, and reduce their movement by 1/2 each time one successfully hits them. (Of course, you and your allies also have to deal with it). There are also Tanglefoot bags, Earth Devotion, Deepstone Sentinel, and various spells that create difficult terrain (and thus indirectly make it harder to Tumble).


I thought it took a standard action to spread caltrops?

Hmm... the PHB doesn't specify. The Bag of Endless Caltrops does, but it's not clear if it's talking about all caltrops, or just those that come out of the bag. (The MIC version isn't all that endless... nerfed to 5/day. The A&EG version had no such limit.)

Jumping Caltrops are a nice little fire-and-forget nuisance. Those could be dropped, and they attack on their own. They can even IFF (Identify Friend or Foe).

Emerald Caltrops (A&EG p. 106) add +1 enhancement bonus and 1d6 acid damage.

Crystal Caltrops (RoF p. 159) release a dose of sleep gas, but the DC 12 Fort save is meh.

Blast Pellets (Races of Stone p. 159) do 1d6 sonic damage but don't really do anything to hamper movement.

There are a few 1st level spells that are sort of anti-grease:

Resinous Tar in Complete Mage doubles movement in a 10' x 10' square.

Path of Frost in Dragon Magic is a little trickier to deploy, but it doubles movement, may do some minor cold damage, and the slippery ice can be used as a grease-like effect.

Sticky Floor in Races of the Dragon creates an entangle effect in a 10' x 10' square. This doesn't create difficult terrain per se, but on a failed save it stops movement completely, and on a successful save the target is entangled in those squares, and movement is halved along with a -4 Dex penalty.

All three spells are prime candidates for Sculpt Spell metamagic.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-12, 06:59 PM
If it's a low level build, you might want to consider caltrops (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Caltrops). With Quickdraw, you can draw them as a Free Action
Sorry, that doesn't work. Caltrops are found in the "Goods And Services" section of the Equipment chapter, subsection "Adventuring Gear". That's the third section, following "Weapons" and "Armor".
Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. As caltrops are adventuring gear rather than weapons, Quick Draw provides no benefit.

jmbrown
2009-11-12, 07:00 PM
DC15 is easy enough though.

Tumble is trained only and has an armor check penalty. Unless they spent cross-class skill points in it (and there are way better things for barbarians and druids to spend points in plus smart wizards never need to tumble) tumble won't do you any good.

There aren't many classes, let alone monsters, with tumble as a trained skill so unless your DM wants to punish you by tossing endless rogues you should be fine.

Fluffles
2009-11-12, 07:40 PM
Tumble is trained only and has an armor check penalty. Unless they spent cross-class skill points in it (and there are way better things for barbarians and druids to spend points in plus smart wizards never need to tumble) tumble won't do you any good.

There aren't many classes, let alone monsters, with tumble as a trained skill so unless your DM wants to punish you by tossing endless rogues you should be fine.

It is really easy to get a tumble modifier of +14. Even with an ACP.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-12, 07:44 PM
As caltrops are adventuring gear rather than weapons, Quick Draw provides no benefit.
I wonder... Could one draw them as an improvised weapon, then drop them as adventuring gear?

Emmerask
2009-11-12, 08:48 PM
It is really easy to get a tumble modifier of +14. Even with an ACP.

Yes in a pvp game that would be true otherwise only if your dm wants to screw your build

deuxhero
2009-11-12, 08:53 PM
Sorry, that doesn't work. Caltrops are found in the "Goods And Services" section of the Equipment chapter, subsection "Adventuring Gear". That's the third section, following "Weapons" and "Armor". As caltrops are adventuring gear rather than weapons, Quick Draw provides no benefit.

On the otherhand, I don't think anyone not actively attempting to screw you over is going to go with that (and as someone mentioned, using them as improvised weapons can get around it)

Curmudgeon
2009-11-12, 09:15 PM
I wonder... Could one draw them as an improvised weapon, then drop them as adventuring gear?
That would be a complete end-run around the rules. After all, anything within size limits could be treated as an improvised weapon. I think it's safest to restrict Quick Draw to actual weapons.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-12, 09:53 PM
That would be a complete end-run around the rules. After all, anything within size limits could be treated as an improvised weapon. I think it's safest to restrict Quick Draw to actual weapons.
I don't think the problem here is with Quick Draw being unrestricted, but instead with the interpretation that implementing caltrops in a harmful way is a free action. As pointed out earlier by Darren, the Bag of Endless Caltrops- which produces mundane caltrops- requires one to spend a standard action to spread the caltrops. (In other words, by interpretation, piling up a bunch of caltrops is less effective- easier to avoid a big ol' pile- than having them spread out randomly, as an opponent can only step on one at a time.)

I mean, either way, the issue comes down to "melee classes can't have nice things," but if you restrict Quick Draw like that, you run into an area where Fighters can Quick Draw a Broad Sword, but 4th-level Drunken Masters can't Quick Draw a shish-kebab skewer, or empty bottle. Well, okay, caster classes might still be able to pull something nastier out from these shenanigans, but they're caster classes.

But, since this is a case where RAW support it but most RAI situations wouldn't ever dream of it... I'm going to start wondering whether I should pinch the caltrops between my fingers and use them as improvised spiked gauntlets, or if I should magnetize every other one and use them as an improvised spiked chain. :smalltongue:

ghashxx
2009-11-12, 10:48 PM
I've often used caltrops in the lower levels when running a fighter, or even in higher levels. Oh, what's that you high level heavy armor dependent charging character? You have problems charging through an area with caltrops? So sorry (snicker snicker).

As to my DM, while he's not looking to totally screw me over I still don't want to get caught with my pants down just in case we do get hit with a rogue.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 12:11 AM
Well, there's also the standard DM limit on how many free actions you can perform in a round, and the DM could decide that that number is too low for you to draw and drop enough caltrops to effectively cover a 5' square.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-13, 12:18 AM
Hm... But if I'm reading everything correctly, there's no mention of how many caltrops are in a bag of caltrops, other than there's more than one and the bag of them weighs two pounds. So- and yes, I realize we left the practical world 100 miles back- I could arguably have two regular-sized 1-pound caltrops in my bag (they're, uh, quite dense?), and that would be enough to cover a five-foot square. Dual-wield improvised weapon caltrops for the... win? Did I just kill my first catgirl? If that didn't do it, I guess the same mundane bag could hold a quadrillion caltrops of the same size, just that they'd have to weigh... Uh, not a whole lot. And would still cover only a single five-foot square.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 01:22 AM
Hm... But if I'm reading everything correctly, there's no mention of how many caltrops are in a bag of caltrops, other than there's more than one and the bag of them weighs two pounds. So- and yes, I realize we left the practical world 100 miles back- ...
If you want to rejoin the real world, I did some experiments with scrap bits of wrought iron fence material and some running shoes that had decent soles but trashed uppers. Unlike steel, iron is fairly soft, and the point tends to round over if the angle is too acute. That means each spike has to be fairly beefy. The lightest iron caltrop I could make that would pierce a shoe sole instead of just deforming was about 140 grams. This puts the number of caltrops in a 2 pound bag at about 6.4. Let's say the actual number is 7, assuming a skilled iron artisan could do a bit better than my test spikes.

(While I think that number is pretty low, it's hard to say what an attack at AB +0 means in terms of the chance of actually stepping on one of those few pointy obstacles.) Anyway, if the DM decides that 14 free actions (1 each for drawing and dropping each of the 7 caltrops needed for coverage) in a round is too many, you're not going to be able to deploy caltrops as drawn improvised weapons.

Draz74
2009-11-13, 03:08 AM
I can't believe no one has mentioned Roots of the Mountain -- as a Stone Dragon stance, it's totally available to Swordsages and is found in Tome of Battle. It gives a -10 penalty to all checks to Tumble past you.

Thicket of Blades is better, of course. But not if the DM rules for some reason that Tumble bypasses Thicket of Blades.

Roots of the Mountain is pretty darn effective at low levels, and even at high levels, it's better than up to 9 levels of Knight. Oh, and it happens to give you other benefits too, like a smidge of DR and resistance to trip/bullrush. It does have various restrictions characteristic of all of Stone Dragon. But yeah ... it sure seems to be a step in the direction of what the OP is looking for!

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 05:25 AM
Thicket of Blades is better, of course. But not if the DM rules for some reason that Tumble bypasses Thicket of Blades.
That's a good point, Draz. The FAQ author has said that Thicket of Blades trumps Tumble, but that's really an arbitrary choice and a DM is free to go the other way. After all, both abilities proclaim absolutely that they win in such a situation.

Personally, I find it appalling that the Tome of Battle authors didn't bother to address an existing core capability when they came up with Thicket of Blades. I'm inclined to give Tumble priority just because it came first.

Quietus
2009-11-13, 05:43 AM
Personally, I find it appalling that the Tome of Battle authors didn't bother to address an existing core capability when they came up with Thicket of Blades. I'm inclined to give Tumble priority just because it came first.

One could use the same logic to suggest fighter, paladin, and monk get priority over warblade, crusader, and swordsage. They came first, after all. :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2009-11-13, 07:22 AM
I can't believe no one has mentioned Roots of the Mountain -- as a Stone Dragon stance, it's totally available to Swordsages and is found in Tome of Battle. It gives a -10 penalty to all checks to Tumble past you.

A -10 penalty to Tumble checks past you doesn't necessarily grant you AoOs against somebody tumbling past you, it just raises the DC to 25 (still doable for a rogue with a decent Dex and some skill ranks in tumble).

Darrin
2009-11-13, 07:55 AM
Sorry, that doesn't work. Caltrops are found in the "Goods And Services" section of the Equipment chapter, subsection "Adventuring Gear". That's the third section, following "Weapons" and "Armor". As caltrops are adventuring gear rather than weapons, Quick Draw provides no benefit.

Emerald Caltrops in (A&EG) are listed in the "Specific Magic Weapons" section, and are enchanted as a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus. So those would probably be eligible for Quickdraw.

Hmmm... I wonder what other enchantments you could put on those... Explosive? Throwing/Returning? Whirling? Sizing (gargantuan sized caltrops)?

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 08:50 AM
One could use the same logic to suggest fighter, paladin, and monk get priority over warblade, crusader, and swordsage. They came first, after all. :smalltongue:
I don't follow you; there's no rules conflict between these different classes. There is a conflict between Tumble always negating movement-related AoOs and Thicket of Blades always provoking AoOs for movement. One of the two abilities needs to be given priority over the other. Since Tumble established a clear absolute statement first, the authors creating a new ability with a conflict really had an obligation to address the issue. Failing that, the official position on how to address such conflicts is to give the primary source priority.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&DŽ rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. According to this rule, Tumble gets priority because it's a rule from the primary source (Player's Handbook), and the primary source takes precedence in all such disagreements.

Person_Man
2009-11-13, 09:52 AM
Sorry, that doesn't work. Caltrops are found in the "Goods And Services" section of the Equipment chapter, subsection "Adventuring Gear". That's the third section, following "Weapons" and "Armor". As caltrops are adventuring gear rather than weapons, Quick Draw provides no benefit.

Hmmm. By RAW you are correct sir. Nice catch. But Darrin correctly points out that Emerald Caltrops (3.0 material) are listed as weapons.

I think an intelligent DM could rule either way. But even if a DM did decide to limit caltrop use - through denying Quickdraw use, or by limiting your Free Actions (either of which would be a reasonable decision) I think that low level players should still make a point of carrying them around. Especially casters and ranged builds. Combat starts, and on your turn you drop two sets of caltrops in front of you, and then take your full action. A couple of points of damage and the ability to stop a Charge is a huge deal when you only have 6-30ish hit points.

The only true nerf would be if your DM insisted that spreading caltrops is a Standard Action. In that case, it would only be useful for setting ambushes. And if you're setting an amubush, you might as well lay out 100 bags of caltrops.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-13, 10:36 AM
If you want to rejoin the real world,
Why would anyone want to do that? :smallbiggrin:


Anyway, if the DM decides that 14 free actions (1 each for drawing and dropping each of the 7 caltrops needed for coverage) in a round is too many, you're not going to be able to deploy caltrops as drawn improvised weapons.
But that's using the lightest caltrops you can make. For the purpose of drawing them as improvised weapons, you actually want to use the heaviest caltrops you can make, hence the one-pound duo. That cuts you me down to 4 free actions.

ghashxx
2009-11-13, 10:47 AM
This puts the number of caltrops in a 2 pound bag at about 6.4. Let's say the actual number is 7, assuming a skilled iron artisan could do a bit better than my test spikes.

(While I think that number is pretty low, it's hard to say what an attack at AB +0 means in terms of the chance of actually stepping on one of those few pointy obstacles.) Anyway, if the DM decides that 14 free actions (1 each for drawing and dropping each of the 7 caltrops needed for coverage) in a round is too many, you're not going to be able to deploy caltrops as drawn improvised weapons.

Wait, why assume they're made from straight up iron? Can't I have steel ones? This ends up being a "meh" point, because the 5' area a person stands in it's not like you're completely stationary. You're definitely moving around a little bit so you can assume there's a possibility of stepping on one of 7-10 or so caltrops.

Now what I'm really confused about here, why would I draw one caltrop out at a time. These things aren't made to be super ridiculously sharp so you can probably just reach into a bag, grab a handful, and sprinkle them around. Even failing that, have a quick release knot attaching the bag to...wherever you have them, and just dump the bag.


I can't believe no one has mentioned Roots of the Mountain -- as a Stone Dragon stance, it's totally available to Swordsages and is found in Tome of Battle. It gives a -10 penalty to all checks to Tumble past you.

Thicket of Blades is better, of course. But not if the DM rules for some reason that Tumble bypasses Thicket of Blades.

it sure seems to be a step in the direction of what the OP is looking for!

This is totally something that I'm looking for! It means I need to decide which of my other stances I want to replace, but that's okay, I wasn't certain about my current selection anyhoo. Thanks a lot Draz!

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 10:53 AM
But that's using the lightest caltrops you can make. For the purpose of drawing them as improvised weapons, you actually want to use the heaviest caltrops you can make, hence the one-pound duo.
What makes you think that using only 2/7 as many caltrops as would normally come in a 2 pound bag would offer any benefit? One normal bag covers a 5' square. Otherwise you could get a 2 pound bag of toy jacks, stencil "CALTROPS" on the sack, and get the same benefit.

Or is there some law of caltrop mass conservation that I've missed in the D&D rules? If so, please point it out. :smallwink:

Mongoose87
2009-11-13, 11:34 AM
That's a good point, Draz. The FAQ author has said that Thicket of Blades trumps Tumble, but that's really an arbitrary choice and a DM is free to go the other way. After all, both abilities proclaim absolutely that they win in such a situation.

Personally, I find it appalling that the Tome of Battle authors didn't bother to address an existing core capability when they came up with Thicket of Blades. I'm inclined to give Tumble priority just because it came first.

Of course, it also says "any movement," which to me sounds like an invitation to have someone provoke an AoO by scratching their nose, rather than to allow tumble to bypass.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-13, 01:01 PM
What makes you think that using only 2/7 as many caltrops as would normally come in a 2 pound bag would offer any benefit?
I don't understand the point you're making here. I'm not using two sevenths of the contents of the bag, I'm using the entire bag.

One 2-pound bag of caltrops covers an area 5 feet square.
As far as I can understand it, as long as I use two pounds of caltrops in a given application, I'm using the entire bag. There's nothing saying I need to use a minimum amount of caltrops in a given square, or a maximum amount of caltrops in a given square, just that I need to use the contents of the entire bag (well, besides common sense). Of course, one could ignore everything about the fluff and say it's actually the bag itself which covers the five foot square, but at this point, if anyone's going to say that, then I think my silly little threadjack should graduate to its own topic.

Sure, the 7 caltrops to a bag houserule is backed by hard facts, but it's still a houserule (and a very reasonable one at that), and from what information you've provided me with, I am to believe heavier caltrops could be made.


Otherwise you could get a 2 pound bag of toy jacks, stencil "CALTROPS" on the sack, and get the same benefit.
Depends on the language of the stencil as well as the medium with which you are stenciling. :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 01:14 PM
I don't understand the point you're making here. I'm not using two sevenths of the contents of the bag, I'm using the entire bag.
Yes, but just as a 2 pound bag of toy jacks labeled as "caltrops" would be ineffective, a 2 pound back of custom extra-large caltrops would also be ineffective. In both cases it's sticking to the letter of the rules, but making the chance of injury negligible. Jacks aren't capable of penetrating footwear, and 2 extra-large caltrops would be obvious and easily stepped over. Caltrops work because they're both tough enough to hurt, and small and numerous enough to be difficult to avoid. You're maintaining the weight, but losing 5/7th the ground coverage. That's pretty useless.

sofawall
2009-11-13, 01:29 PM
Yes, but just as a 2 pound bag of toy jacks labeled as "caltrops" would be ineffective, a 2 pound back of custom extra-large caltrops would also be ineffective. In both cases it's sticking to the letter of the rules, but making the chance of injury negligible. Jacks aren't capable of penetrating footwear, and 2 extra-large caltrops would be obvious and easily stepped over. Caltrops work because they're both tough enough to hurt, and small and numerous enough to be difficult to avoid. You're maintaining the weight, but losing 5/7th the ground coverage. That's pretty useless.

No matter how sensible your argument is, D&D doesn't care one bit. It laughs at your logic, and covers an entire 5 ft. square with two very heavy, very dense, very small caltrops.

Because it can.

Darrin
2009-11-13, 02:34 PM
The only true nerf would be if your DM insisted that spreading caltrops is a Standard Action. In that case, it would only be useful for setting ambushes. And if you're setting an amubush, you might as well lay out 100 bags of caltrops.

That's what the Collar of Perpetual Attendance (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fools/20030401c) is for:

PC: *snaps fingers* "Jeeves! Caltrops in this square, if you please. Next round, that square, and so on."

Which only reduces it to a move action, but get yourself a monkey wild cohort/animal companion, train it to spread caltrops, and you can reduce it to a free action.

ghashxx
2009-11-13, 03:10 PM
Yet by RAW you can't use caltrops as weapons, since they're not in the weapon section. Even the special glass ones, really? Come on, using caltrops as weapons in your hand? I'm not even certain how to really respond to this idea other than say "ouch, that is going to be one hurtin hand". These are metal items that are meant to have spikes positioned in such a way that when on the ground there's always at least one spike pointing up that can penetrate even through boots without too much trouble. This would make it pretty much literally impossible to hold in your hand without getting some seriously nasty wounds. This may be D&D with fantasy involved, but caltrops being used as weapons and just saying "it's fantasy, so whatever"? To me there's a line to be drawn about what's realistic enough, and just way to ridiculous. That line is drawn after spiked chains, and before 2lb caltrops and caltrops as hand held weapons.

sofawall
2009-11-13, 03:17 PM
Yet by RAW you can't use caltrops as weapons, since they're not in the weapon section. Even the special glass ones, really? Come on, using caltrops as weapons in your hand? I'm not even certain how to really respond to this idea other than say "ouch, that is going to be one hurtin hand". These are metal items that are meant to have spikes positioned in such a way that when on the ground there's always at least one spike pointing up that can penetrate even through boots without too much trouble. This would make it pretty much literally impossible to hold in your hand without getting some seriously nasty wounds. This may be D&D with fantasy involved, but caltrops being used as weapons and just saying "it's fantasy, so whatever"? To me there's a line to be drawn about what's realistic enough, and just way to ridiculous. That line is drawn after spiked chains, and before 2lb caltrops and caltrops as hand held weapons.

I just thought of a way to hold a caltrop (http://www.welandsmithy.com/Pictures/Caltrop.jpg) in a hand. Took me about a second. Have your palm on the bottom, fingers wrapped around the side-points, the center point (up, in this illustration) being the stabbing surface.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-13, 04:50 PM
Yet by RAW you can't use caltrops as weapons, since they're not in the weapon section.
Hence the words "draw it as an improvised weapon".

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Certainly, you'd say caltrops are objects, right? And you do claim that they're not crafted to be weapons, right? Then they can be used as improvised weapon. Can quick draw work with improvised weapons? Well, it works with all weapons, and I do see "Improvised Weapons" under the "Weapon Categories" of the Player's Handbook, page 113. I would guess they do piddly to 1d3 piercing damage, and I'd personally lean towards the piddly end. I really don't care about my crummy damage and to-hit as far as using them as weapons, though, I'm only holding them like that so I can drop them as a free action.

If you're really concerned about how I manage to use caltrops without hurting myself, let's see... I'll take Warlock 3. There, now I'm not troubled by ordinary caltrops at all, unless you're going to tell me that I hurt my feet by holding an improvised weapon in my hand.

Yes, I know the number of DMs out there that would actually consider this possible is less than maybe five worldwide. Yes, I know it only works in a RAW vaccuum and doesn't really do anything optimal, that's why I like it. I'm the kind of guy that enjoys getting a mile when given an inch, and I'm never going to play something this silly without kindly talking it over with a DM in a humorous campaign first. I really don't see what sort of harm it causes, other than the ability to drop a bunch of caltrops. Which are, you know, caltrops. Oh no, whatever shall I do, cast Magic Missile, use a ranged weapon, buff up, fly, use a weapon with reach, wear shoes (as mundane shoes give you an AC boost against caltrops in their ordinary usage)... :smallwink:

jmbrown
2009-11-13, 05:10 PM
It is really easy to get a tumble modifier of +14. Even with an ACP.

And it's also easier to get your concentration that high. By the time you get a +14 in tumble, you have the spells or a high enough concentration to make melee fighters pestering you a non-option.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 05:22 PM
No matter how sensible your argument is, D&D doesn't care one bit. It laughs at your logic, and covers an entire 5 ft. square with two very heavy, very dense, very small caltrops.

Because it can.
I guess if we're laughing at logic we'll have to admit the amusing notion wherein the DM will decide that after drawing even 2 caltrops, with Quick Draw or as part of a move action, and even if those caltrops are the Emerald kind that really count as weapons, dropping them will exceed the number of free actions reasonably available to you.
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort, and over the span of the round, their impact is so minor that they are considered free. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, the DM puts reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.
Because, strictly following the letter of the rules, the DM can.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-13, 05:32 PM
If you consider it reasonable to step on the heels of a bunch of dual-wielders that are wielding "actual" weapons to nerf a silly tactic that drops caltrops around, then yes, that does throw a wrench in the plan- hence the whole "works in a RAW vaccuum" bit. However, the Test of Spite rules give you thirty free actions with which to work, so if a DM is really obtuse enough to only give his or her players two free actions, I'd say I was more or less doomed before I started.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-13, 06:23 PM
Oh, I consider many things unreasonable, including 30 free actions in a round. I wouldn't disallow using Quick Draw with Emerald Caltrops; after all, they're explicitly defined as weapons and Quick Draw works to draw weapons. But I would insist that the bag contains at least 6 caltrops to cover a 5' square.

Here's an idea: get some custom spring-loaded caltrops made. One leg is fixed, and the other three fold up alongside it to make a roughly cylindrical package. You'll need to use something stronger than iron, of course; mithral is a good choice. Fit 7 of these together into a bundle (6 around 1), and slide the bundle into a weapon sheath.
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands.
...
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. Turn a bunch of caltrops into a reasonably "weapon-like object", and we're back in the land of the sensible.

sofawall
2009-11-13, 06:32 PM
Oh, I consider many things unreasonable, including 30 free actions in a round. I wouldn't disallow using Quick Draw with Emerald Caltrops; after all, they're explicitly defined as weapons and Quick Draw works to draw weapons. But I would insist that the bag contains at least 6 caltrops to cover a 5' square.

Here's an idea: get some custom spring-loaded caltrops made. One leg is fixed, and the other three fold up alongside it to make a roughly cylindrical package. You'll need to use something stronger than iron, of course; mithral is a good choice. Fit 7 of these together into a bundle (6 around 1), and slide the bundle into a weapon sheath. Turn a bunch of caltrops into a reasonably "weapon-like object", and we're back in the land of the sensible.

Talking is a free action. Drawing an arrow is a free action. Drawing a weapon can be a free action.

30 free actions is considered to be possibly too low a limit in ToS matches.

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-13, 11:57 PM
I'll be taking further discussion about my wacky use of caltrops over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131635), this threadjack has gone on long enough. I can't make everyone take it over there, feel free to continue talking about it here, but you know where I'll be.

Baelathil
2009-11-15, 08:55 AM
If it's a low level build, you might want to consider caltrops (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Caltrops). With Quickdraw, you can draw them as a Free Action, and dropping any item is a Free Action.

I thought it took a standard action to spread caltrops?

Hmm... the PHB doesn't specify. The Bag of Endless Caltrops does, but it's not clear if it's talking about all caltrops, or just those that come out of the bag. (The MIC version isn't all that endless... nerfed to 5/day. The A&EG version had no such limit.)


I thought the default - when the book doesn't specify what kind of an action it takes to do something - was standard action; so the PHB's silence should be read as saying standard action. This is then supported by the Bag of Endless Caltrops: it says you use a move action (the activation cost) to grab a load of caltrops out of it; it then follows up by saying "In addition to the activation cost, filling a 5-foot square with caltrops by hand requires a standard action."

On the whole Quick Draw controversy: normal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#draworSheatheaWeapon) drawing or sheathing of a weapon is a move action and the same applies to weapon-like objects "such as wands" (which I take to mean the issue is their physical size and shape, not the effect they have); anything else takes a standard action to get out. The exceptions for draw-while-moving and Quick Draw explicitly apply to weapons and only to drawing: unlike the text on drawing and sheathing, they don't mention sheathing and they don't mention weapon-like objects. Doubtless a reasonable DM would allow a Drunken Master or other expert at improvised weapons to apply Quick Draw to them (albeit the Drunken Master is more likely to be grabbing nearby objects than "drawing" per se), but that would be fluffed as due to the fact that, for him, they are weapons - whereas, for anyone else, they're not, so still take a move action or more.

Furthermore, even if Quick Draw does apply, what you're actually "drawing" is the 2 lb bag of caltrops, not the caltrops themselves; and you're welcome to drop the bag, which I will grant as a free action, but it does you no good. Bag of caltrops sits on floor, causing no impediment to movement. If you want to impede someone's movement, you need to spread the caltrops over the 5 ft square: as the item description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#caltrops) says, "You scatter caltrops on the ground". That's not the same thing as dropping them: even without the bag, that would leave a heap of caltrops at one point in the square. If you don't take the standard action to scatter them, they ain't scattered so they don't slow your foe. Stepping round a heap of dropped caltrops, and maybe one or two that fell aside on hitting the ground, isn't a significant impediment to movement.

The fact that it's a bag of caltrops is also another reason why you can't quick draw; what you're pulling out of your pack or belt is the bag of caltrops, which isn't a weapon, even if you do contrive to regard the individual caltrops in it as weapons. For the special magical caltrops with plusses, acid damage and what have you, I'd regard the rule books' listing of them as "weapons" as a formality to fit with the bonuses they're applying to the attacks they make to anyone who steps on them; those're weapon bonuses, after all. I still don't think that really makes the caltrops themselves, much less a bag of them, into weapons.

... and spring-loaded caltrops that can be folded away would fail to work as caltrops, unless the victim was really unlucky stepping on them: instead of impaling their foot on the up-pointed spike, they'd most usually fold that spike down against the others !

Curmudgeon
2009-11-15, 12:54 PM
I thought the default - when the book doesn't specify what kind of an action it takes to do something - was standard action; so the PHB's silence should be read as saying standard action. I don't find that default specified anywhere in the rules.
Manipulate an Item

In most cases, moving or manipulating an item is a move action. This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Shaking out a bag of caltrops seems like manipulating an item to me.

This is then supported by the Bag of Endless Caltrops: it says you use a move action (the activation cost) to grab a load of caltrops out of it; it then follows up by saying "In addition to the activation cost, filling a 5-foot square with caltrops by hand requires a standard action." That's a specific rule for this magic item.

... and spring-loaded caltrops that can be folded away would fail to work as caltrops, unless the victim was really unlucky stepping on them: instead of impaling their foot on the up-pointed spike, they'd most usually fold that spike down against the others !
As I envisioned this custom item, each leg would have a catch that locks it in place when fully opened. I thought that went without saying, so I didn't. My error. :smallamused:

Baelathil
2009-11-15, 03:13 PM
I thought the default - when the book doesn't specify what kind of an action it takes to do something - was standard action; so the PHB's silence should be read as saying standard action. I don't find that default specified anywhere in the rules.

Manipulate an Item

In most cases, moving or manipulating an item is a move action. This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Shaking out a bag of caltrops seems like manipulating an item to me.
That sounds like a convincing argument to me; in any case, it's definitely more of an action than merely dropping the bag (or its contents).



This is then supported by the Bag of Endless Caltrops: it says you use a move action (the activation cost) to grab a load of caltrops out of it; it then follows up by saying "In addition to the activation cost, filling a 5-foot square with caltrops by hand requires a standard action." That's a specific rule for this magic item.
True; yet the wording does lend itself to being read as a general statement about caltrops, rather than only about the caltrops you get out of this magic item. Absent a better basis for deciding what kind of action it was, it was the nearest I could see to an answer.

But "Activation: Move (manipulation)" sounds reasonable to me.