Tumble vs Thicket of Blades [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Curmudgeon

2014-02-22, 07:43 AM

The RAW reason for why Tumble "wins" here is the following:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® 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. Tumble is in Player's Handbook, the primary source for the rules of the game, so that's the correct rule to settle this disagreement.

Basically, the authors of Tome of Battle were idiots to give such scant consideration to the core rules of D&D.

The Insanity

2014-02-22, 11:24 AM

Yes that is of immeasurable value in a situation where there are two specific rules each trying to trump the other.
ThoB doesn't allow movement in general. Tumble specifically allows movement. Pretty simple to me.

Firechanter

2014-02-22, 12:03 PM

ThoB doesn't allow movement in general. Tumble specifically allows movement. Pretty simple to me.

You could just as well turn that around. Particularly as neither Tumble nor ThoB allow or deny movement at all. You can always move as much as you like.
So you could as well say that Tumble denies AoOs from Movement in general, while ThoB specifically grants them.
So that one-liner doesn't help at all.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-22, 12:33 PM

It's the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force. There's not going to be a clear-cut answer, though I'd lean towards tumble winning if I had to pick. At least tumble has a check and isn't yet another binary win/lose button. Plus, tumble auto-failing vs. ThoB makes Roots of the Mountain, a stance of THE SAME FREAKING LEVEL (that "only" ups tumble DCs by 10 around the user) look even crappier than it does already.

For my own game, I think I'm just gonna have ThoB apply the same +10 DC to tumble as RotM as a houserule, to deal with this issue. Which will be coming up soon.

ThoB doesn't allow movement in general. Tumble specifically allows movement. Pretty simple to me.

That's an extremely poor representation of the rules.

ThoB doesn't allow movement to avoid an AoO.

Tumble allows movement to avoid an AoO.

ThoB does not prevent movement, nor does tumbling allow it. Against ThoB and/or without Tumble, you can move just fine. You just might get smacked across the back of your head for it.

kirerellim

2014-02-22, 12:53 PM

eggynack

2014-02-22, 01:05 PM

The RAW reason for why Tumble "wins" here is the following: Tumble is in Player's Handbook, the primary source for the rules of the game, so that's the correct rule to settle this disagreement.

Basically, the authors of Tome of Battle were idiots to give such scant consideration to the core rules of D&D.
Well, unless you consider the fact that ToB could be considered the primary source for the rules on thicket of blades. I don't think there's going to end up being an unambiguous winner on this one.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-22, 01:15 PM

Hm. You know, I think I'm just gonna home rule the compromise:

Tumble check for tumbling past thicket of blades is normal tumble check + maneuver users level(can't remember technical term lol)

Sound fair? Or should it be maneuver users martial knowledge so they can build to counter tumble specifically

Edit: ehhh upon further thought, the first option. Tumbling alread had a15 dc.

The first's DC is too high. Assuming no other circumstantial penalties for tumbling (uneven ground, multiple foes to go by, "gee it'd be nice to move full speed", etc...) that's a DC of 20 at the lowest (at ECL 5) to 35 at the highest (At ECL 20).

The 2nd option, making a Martial Lore check opposed by the tumbler's Tumble check, is pretty fair, assuming that's what you meant.

kirerellim

2014-02-22, 01:23 PM

You know, upon further consideration, I think I'm gonna have to agree with StreamOfTheSky.

Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie). Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.

You maintain a careful guard as you search for any gaps in your opponent’s awareness. Even the slightest move provokes a stinging counter from you.

While you are in this stance, any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step, provokes an attack of opportunity from you. Your foes provoke this attack before leaving the area you threaten. Your opponents also cannot use the withdraw action (PH 143) to treat the square they start in as no longer threatened by you.

Looking at this, my first instinctive reaction is to say no tumbling. But looking closer...

It says taking any sort of movement, including a five foot step. That seems to be there to let everyone know that a five foot step that normally does not give an AoO does in this case. However, tumble isn't technically a form of movement, but a skill check done as part of normal movement made to allow you to avoid AoO.

Secondly, it specifies not being able to use withdraw action to become no longer threatened. It seems likely that these people writing a dnd book would know about tumble allowing to avoid AoO and throw a sentence in there along the lines of "Tumble cannot be used to block AoO either" but prettier. However, I wouldn't swear by that cause I've seen Truenamer. Nuff said.

What my final decision in my game is to use a part of tumble I dont normally pay much attention to.

Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.

This is normally for separate enemies, cause only moving /out/ of someones area gives an AoO right? When moving through the range of someone with thicket of blades, every moment, theoretically, provokes an AoO. So, for every square you move through in the Thicket of Blades threat range, +2 to DC.

What does everyone think?

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-22, 01:28 PM

What my final decision in my game is to use a part of tumble I dont normally pay much attention to.

Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.

This is normally for separate enemies, cause only moving /out/ of someones area gives an AoO right? When moving through the range of someone with thicket of blades, every moment, theoretically, provokes an AoO. So, for every square you move through in the Thicket of Blades threat range, +2 to DC.

What does everyone think?

I was with you until this part, which I strongly disagree with. It's not just that you only provoke for moving out of one space. It's that the rules specifically state that you only provoke from each creature ONCE for your movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#combatReflexes), no matter how many threatened spaces of his that you move through.

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-02-22, 01:37 PM

Well, unless you consider the fact that ToB could be considered the primary source for the rules on thicket of blades. I don't think there's going to end up being an unambiguous winner on this one.

But THoB is not modifying itself, but movement/AoO Rules in the PHB. Tumble is in the PHB, so it is part of the primary source. Given the conflict of Primary (tumble) vs secondary (THoB) tumble would win.

kirerellim

2014-02-22, 01:38 PM

Gwendol

2014-02-22, 01:38 PM

It's not a bad ruling at all. I'd use it.

Compare with knight vigilant defender which increases the DC for tumbling.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-02-22, 01:40 PM

Oh I missed that one. Well then. I have no idea lol. I still think tumble should apply, but I dislike the ease of tumbling normally I think there should be some difficulty added.

Question: Does moving in a threatened area normally provoke attack of opportunities? I thought it was only when leaving the threatened area ><

Leaving provokes, but you can only provoke one AoO per creature per move action, even if you leave multiple of that creatures threatened squares.

eggynack

2014-02-22, 01:43 PM

But THoB is not modifying itself, but movement/AoO Rules in the PHB. Tumble is in the PHB, so it is part of the primary source. Given the conflict of Primary (tumble) vs secondary (THoB) tumble would win.
It's not really modifying those rules at all, except in this one exception based circumstance. It's saying that this ability does this thing, allowing you to AoO your enemies. If the ToB said, "Tumbling always provokes AoO's now," then it would be wrong, but it's just saying, "This specific ability causes all movement to provoke AoO's," which makes it ambiguous. Thicket of blades is not the secondary source for how thicket of blades works, and within that domain, it has the capacity to reign supreme.

kirerellim

2014-02-22, 01:44 PM

... Oops. I've been doing AoO's wrong for years lol I've been going by threatened area not by threatened squares.

Yea, my ruling doesn't make much sense in that concept damn lol.

Edit: End game for me, tumble wins. I'll probably just go with tumble vs Martial Knowledge or whatever its called to give the crusaders a chance lol

Gwendol

2014-02-22, 01:44 PM

Oh I missed that one. Well then. I have no idea lol. I still think tumble should apply, but I dislike the ease of tumbling normally I think there should be some difficulty added.

Question: Does moving in a threatened area normally provoke attack of opportunities? I thought it was only when leaving the threatened area ><

Normally no, but I guess it depends on feats and circumstances: hold the line for example vs a charge.

Gwendol

2014-02-22, 01:47 PM

It's not really modifying those rules at all, except in this one exception based circumstance. It's saying that this ability does this thing, allowing you to AoO your enemies. If the ToB said, "Tumbling always provokes AoO's now," then it would be wrong, but it's just saying, "This specific ability causes all movement to provoke AoO's," which makes it ambiguous. Thicket of blades is not the secondary source for how thicket of blades works, and within that domain, it has the capacity to reign supreme.

Except it doesn't since it quite unequivocally does not provoke, and an exception to that rule is not called out in the description of the stance.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-02-22, 01:48 PM

It's not really modifying those rules at all, except in this one exception based circumstance. It's saying that this ability does this thing, allowing you to AoO your enemies. If the ToB said, "Tumbling always provokes AoO's now," then it would be wrong, but it's just saying, "This specific ability causes all movement to provoke AoO's," which makes it ambiguous. Thicket of blades is not the secondary source for how thicket of blades works, and within that domain, it has the capacity to reign supreme.

Thicket of Blades works by creating a specific exception to a general rule. Tumbling works the same way. The general rule being in the primary book, along with specific exception, tumbling, would make tumbling the primary exception.

And sorry if I am not explaining myself well. Being a phone actually makes it hard to figure out what I am typing.

eggynack

2014-02-22, 01:57 PM

Thicket of Blades works by creating a specific exception to a general rule. Tumbling works the same way. The general rule being in the primary book, along with specific exception, tumbling, would make tumbling the primary exception.
They are both at the approximate same level of specificity, which is why this situation is dumb. Tumbling is the primary source for tumbling, which makes it correct about tumbling, and ToB is the primary source for thicket, which makes it correct about thicket. They're both applying their specific exception to the general rule of movement and AoO's. The two sources are at about the same place in terms of both specificity and primacy, so, ambiguity.

Gwendol

2014-02-22, 02:35 PM

You're ignoring the Errata rule on primary sources. It quite clearly lays out the procedure for clearing out conflicting rules. In this case however, I'm not sure this is needed since the stance calls out two specific movements that normally don't provoke.
Tumbling is not a movement per se, it's a skill check during movement to avoid AoO's.

eggynack

2014-02-22, 02:45 PM

You're ignoring the Errata rule on primary sources.
I really don't think I'm ignoring that at all. Tumble just has no primacy where thicket of blades is concerned, and abilities have the ability to alter base rules with reference to themselves. That's just how abilities work.

Tumbling is not a movement per se, it's a skill check during movement to avoid AoO's.
This argument makes a bit more sense, but I don't think it removes the ambiguity. The tumbling itself may not be a movement, but the character is moving, and that means that he provokes. Tumble overwrites the rules for AoO's by saying you don't provoke, and thicket overwrites them by saying that you provoke no matter what.

Gwendol

2014-02-22, 03:43 PM

I thoroughly disagree.

eggynack

2014-02-22, 03:44 PM

I thoroughly disagree.
Alrighty then.

SinsI

2014-02-22, 04:18 PM

Drachasor

2014-02-22, 04:25 PM

There are two kinds of movement that don't normally provoke AOO:
5-foot step and withdraw action.
Thicket of blades mentions:
1) Any movement
2) even 5-foot step.

If Thicket of Blades was affecting only those two kinds of movement, it would've explicitly mentioned only them.
But it says "any movement". This means that it affects all other kinds of movement - and there is only one other kind of movement that don't provoke - Tumble.

There's also withdrawal actions.
Thicket mentions Withdrawing and 5-foot steps explicitly and nothing else.
Then there's of course different movement types, which one might interpret as different kinds of movement (we could certainly imagine a stance that worked on say standard movement, but not on swimming).

Gwendol

2014-02-22, 04:38 PM

eggynack

2014-02-22, 04:47 PM

Exactly, and tumbling is not listed among the exceptions to which the stance applies. It may be due to poor editing (nothing new when ToB is concerned), or it is intentional. As it stands though, tumble to avoid AoO's still works against a martial adept in the ThoB stance.
It doesn't need to be listed as an explicit exception, or rather it does to be unambiguously pro-thicket, but it doesn't need that to remain in this ambiguous pseudo-state. If you're moving while tumbling, you're moving, and thus you get hit by the AoO. No matter what the movement is. However, you also don't get hit by the AoO, because that's what tumble does. The two rules just straight up contradict each other, and there's nothing that would cause one to take precedence over the other.

Gwendol

2014-02-22, 04:49 PM

Except for the rules on primary source, which in this case says that the rule in the PHB takes precedence.

eggynack

2014-02-22, 04:55 PM

Except for the rules on primary source, which in this case says that the rule in the PHB takes precedence.
And I obviously disagree with that, for the reasons I've stated. The PHB has primary source authority on tumble, but ToB has primary source authority on thicket of blades. If there's any primary source rule to be applied here, it is just as ambiguous as the rules issue you're using it to solve.

Drachasor

2014-02-22, 04:55 PM

It doesn't need to be listed as an explicit exception, or rather it does to be unambiguously pro-thicket, but it doesn't need that to remain in this ambiguous pseudo-state. If you're moving while tumbling, you're moving, and thus you get hit by the AoO. No matter what the movement is. However, you also don't get hit by the AoO, because that's what tumble does. The two rules just straight up contradict each other, and there's nothing that would cause one to take precedence over the other.

I don't think it needs to explicitly state every exception. But if it was going to cover tumbling and ALL movement that normally doesn't provoke, then it should have said "including movement that normally doesn't provoke." Or something equivalent to that. And we do see this sort of care with lots of abilities that overrule exceptions/protections.

I wouldn't even say there's a real conflict here. There are a number of feats and abilities that "give" you a capability you already possess. So if Thicket didn't state any examples of non-provoking movement, then I'd say it did nothing by RAW. It does give two examples, and its wording otherwise sucks, so that is that.

eggynack

2014-02-22, 04:57 PM

I don't think it needs to explicitly state every exception. But if it was going to cover tumbling and ALL movement that normally doesn't provoke, then it should have said "including movement that normally doesn't provoke." Or something equivalent to that. And we do see this sort of care with lots of abilities that overrule exceptions/protections.

It doesn't really need to say that at all. Movement that normally doesn't provoke falls under the heading of all movement, and all movement is what provokes here.

Drachasor

2014-02-22, 05:05 PM

It doesn't really need to say that at all. Movement that normally doesn't provoke falls under the heading of all movement, and all movement is what provokes here.

In a system like D&D it does in fact need to be explicit about that sort of thing. That's how the rules work, because if a given movement ability says "this doesn't provoke" then it overrules another ability or rule that just says "movement provokes". The former is in fact being more specific than the later. Heck, the rules on Attacks of Opportunity are written like this (they aren't explicit about exceptions either).

Again, other abilities that override specific protections explicitly say they override them. Thicket of Blades does not say this except for providing two cases that it overrides and not generalizing beyond them.

But it is certainly doubly true given the PHB is a primary source on combat rules and TOB is not.

eggynack

2014-02-22, 05:12 PM

Drachasor

2014-02-22, 05:17 PM

It doesn't just say that movement provokes. It says that all movement provokes. It's just a big ol' yes on anything that moves, no matter what, all the time. That means that it overrides sort of movement that says it doesn't provoke by saying the opposite.

If a spell does Fire damage to all creatures it targets, that doesn't mean Fire Immunes take damage too.

Abilities have to explicitly state they override protections or they don't.

"All movement" isn't explicit, and it just means the same thing as "any movement" -- literally. If it didn't give specific overrides then Thicket of Blades would do nothing.

This is how all protections and protection overrides work in the game. Just saying "It does X" doesn't override protections that say "X doesn't apply." The latter is more specific. Tumble is more specific than "all movement" (which is far from specific in what it means by "all").

Fitz10019

2014-02-22, 10:49 PM

The PHB has primary source authority on tumble, but ToB has primary source authority on thicket of blades.

You're inadvertently misusing 'primary' and 'secondary.' The primary/secondary rule is for the game as a whole, not for individual feats, etc.

kirerellim

2014-02-23, 12:15 AM

I... Have started a war... Lol

eggynack

2014-02-23, 12:30 AM

If a spell does Fire damage to all creatures it targets, that doesn't mean Fire Immunes take damage too.

Abilities have to explicitly state they override protections or they don't.

"All movement" isn't explicit, and it just means the same thing as "any movement" -- literally. If it didn't give specific overrides then Thicket of Blades would do nothing.

This is how all protections and protection overrides work in the game. Just saying "It does X" doesn't override protections that say "X doesn't apply." The latter is more specific. Tumble is more specific than "all movement" (which is far from specific in what it means by "all").
I don't know if there's necessarily parity between the two situations you're presenting. The spell tries do deal fire damage to the creature, and the creature doesn't take it, as that is the nature of fire immunity. The rules governing AoO's are changed to some extent by these rules, as the "usually" inherent to AoO's with regards to movement is changed to an "always". Your overall logic seems fairly reasonable though.

You're inadvertently misusing 'primary' and 'secondary.' The primary/secondary rule is for the game as a whole, not for individual feats, etc.
I really don't think I'm misusing anything here. Thicket of blades is outside the purview of anything in the PHB, whether you consider the ToB the primary source for those rules or not. I don't really know what you mean by the game as a whole either. It seems like primary source rules explicitly apply to stuff like magic item descriptions, which probably fits under your etc. there.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-23, 12:41 AM

And I obviously disagree with that, for the reasons I've stated. The PHB has primary source authority on tumble, but ToB has primary source authority on thicket of blades.
Your statement makes "primary source" altogether meaningless, because every book containing a unique bit of text is the "primary source" for that bit of text.

You may not like it, but WotC has only declared three books as primary sources for D&D, all of them with "CORE RULEBOOK" on the front cover. Every other rules book is secondary (or tertiary, or something else which isn't primary).

SinsI

2014-02-23, 07:28 AM

Fitz10019

2014-02-23, 10:30 AM

I'd say "primary:secondary sources" work like this:

1) Initial - default rule: 5-foot step and withdrawal don't cause AoO,
other movement does.
2) Modified by the Primary source: other movement, if done using successful Tumble, causes no AoO
3) Modified by Secondary source: Thicket of Blades takes all existing forms of movement from 1) and 2) and makes them provoke AoO.

In other words, Primary Sources are applied first, with Secondary sources applied to the result of that operation.

No. Applying a rule later (or last) makes it dominant. Primary is supposed to be dominant.

I don't really know what you mean by the game as a whole either.
Sorry, I'll correct my statement.

You're inadvertently misusing 'primary' and 'secondary.' The primary/secondary rule is for the game as a whole, not for individual feats, etc.

SinsI

2014-02-23, 11:30 AM

No. Applying a rule later (or last) makes it dominant. Primary is supposed to be dominant.
If that were the case, there would be no need to bring in Tumble at all. Thicket of Blades would not work from the get-go, as Default (5-foot step and withdraw action not provoking) is Primary, while Thicket of Blades is Secondary.

Fitz10019

2014-02-23, 12:00 PM

If that were the case, there would be no need to bring in Tumble at all. Thicket of Blades would not work from the get-go, as Default (5-foot step and withdraw action not provoking) is Primary, while Thicket of Blades is Secondary.

Specific overrules General. Primary overrules Secondary when two rules conflict. Thicket is specific for the 5-foot step. It is not specific about Tumble. The conflict is resolved by PvS.

Maybe we should stat up Primary and Secondary, and have an arena match.

Manly Man

2014-02-23, 12:06 PM

Honestly, I just usually rule in favor of Thicket of Blades, because melee doesn't really get nice things.

Killer Angel

2014-02-23, 12:25 PM

I can see the reasoning between primary / secondary source, but tumble doesn't provoke AoO, and ThoB works against movements that usually don't provoke AoO.
IMO, is clear that ThoB "wins", but for other plagrounders is true the opposite, so I don't think this thread will solve the issue between the two PoVs.

Drachasor

2014-02-23, 02:00 PM

Honestly, I just usually rule in favor of Thicket of Blades, because melee doesn't really get nice things.

Thicket vs. Tumble is a Melee Nice Thing vs. Melee Nice Thing.

If a caster wants to avoid AoO he has at least a couple dozen ways to do so.

I can see the reasoning between primary / secondary source, but tumble doesn't provoke AoO, and ThoB works against movements that usually don't provoke AoO.
IMO, is clear that ThoB "wins", but for other plagrounders is true the opposite, so I don't think this thread will solve the issue between the two PoVs.

That's not what Thicket says. Thicket only says it works against two specific types of movement that normally don't provoke. It never says it works against all movement that would normally not provoke.

If Thicket actually said "All movement in your threatened area provokes, even movement that normally doesn't provoke" then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

SinsI

2014-02-23, 02:11 PM

That's not what Thicket says. Thicket only says it works against two specific types of movement that normally don't provoke.
Read it again.
Thicket mentions 5-foot step and "all movement". If it was working only against two specific types of movement it would've mentioned not "all movement", but "withdrawal action". Since it mentions "all movement" instead, it affects the third type of movement that normally doesn't provoke AoO - Tumble.

Anyway, there's an official ruling:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090603010823/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080526a

"Q: If you are in the Thicket of Blades stance and an opponent tumbles past you, do you get an attack of opportunity?

A: Yes, you may make an attack of opportunity even if an opponent uses Tumble or other types of movement that would normally not allow you to make them, such as the Spring Attack feat."

Drachasor

2014-02-23, 02:27 PM

Read it again.
Thicket mentions 5-foot step and "all movement". If it was working only against two specific types of movement it would've mentioned not "all movement", but "withdrawal action". Since it mentions "all movement" instead, it affects the third type of movement that normally doesn't provoke AoO - Tumble.

Anyway, there's an official ruling:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090603010823/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080526a

"Q: If you are in the Thicket of Blades stance and an opponent tumbles past you, do you get an attack of opportunity?

A: Yes, you may make an attack of opportunity even if an opponent uses Tumble or other types of movement that would normally not allow you to make them, such as the Spring Attack feat."

This isn't Pathfinder. A Q&A isn't RAW and can't change the rules. Heck, the FAQ doesn't change any rules. If either contradicts the rules, they are wrong.

"All movement" means the same thing as "Any movement" and that's just not sufficiently precise when it comes to this. It doesn't state that it applies to movement that doesn't provoke, so it doesn't. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's like Fire Immunity or any other sort of blanket protection (Mind Blank, whatever). You can't override that protection without explicitly saying you are overriding it. The Thicket of Blades text is not remotely explicit here, except for 5-foot steps and Withdrawal actions. That's it.

Again, it would have to say something like "All movement provokes, even if that movement normally doesn't provoke". Without specifically saying it overrules such non-provoking movement, it simply does not. If it didn't specify 5-foot steps or Withdrawal actions, then Thicket of Blades would do nothing at all. And yes, there are a few horrible feats and abilities in 3.5 that do nothing because they only 'give' you the ability to do something you could already do.

Edit: Consider an Area Effect spell that did Dominate Monster on "all creatures in the area." Then said "even creatures protected by Protection from Evil or Spell Immunity." That wouldn't cover Mind Blank, constructs, undead, or most forms of mental protection. Anyone with those would remain immune to the effect. Specifying a couple things it counters doesn't mean squat if you don't have a specific and broader statement. Just saying "all of X" doesn't mean a thing.

Anyhow, a Q&A is might be suitable for RAI, but it isn't RAW.

Particle_Man

2014-02-23, 02:36 PM

It is times like this that I wish that Wotc would release a non-damaged errata for the Book of 9 Swords.

Anyhow, I think the answer is probably "ask your DM". When I played a Crusader, my DM said tumble wins.

Gwendol

2014-02-23, 02:48 PM

SinsI

2014-02-23, 02:50 PM

Anyhow, a Q&A is might be suitable for RAI, but it isn't RAW.
Official ruling - FAQ - is the final, ultimate RAW.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-23, 03:02 PM

Official ruling - FAQ - is the final, ultimate RAW.

3E FAQs are not RAW, and are often hilariously wrong. PF FAQs are RAW and treated much different from how they were in 3E. In fact, if you go by the measure of "is the FAQ directly opposed to this interpretation?" as your only metric for ruling decision-making, you make out quite well.

Gwendol

2014-02-23, 03:07 PM

Official ruling - FAQ - is the final, ultimate RAW.

::Facepalm::

No, the FAQ is not that at all.

Karnith

2014-02-23, 03:07 PM

Official ruling - FAQ - is the final, ultimate RAW.
This is a discussion that really should be taken to another thread (or, better yet, that should stop here, because it never goes anywhere fun), but in short the RAW status of the 3.5 FAQ is a contentious issue. The FAQ (and, by extension, the Ask the Sage questions that spawned it) is usually useful for divining author's intent, but it has a habit of contradicting the rules that it references, contradicting itself, making up rules where none exist, and referencing rules that do not exist. It also has the problem of not really fitting into WotC's rules hierarchy. Unlike in Pathfinder, the FAQ was completely separate from the errata process and was only meant to clarify how the rules work, not change how they work.

Killer Angel

2014-02-23, 03:29 PM

That's not what Thicket says. Thicket only says it works against two specific types of movement that normally don't provoke. It never says it works against all movement that would normally not provoke.

Thicket says "all movements". 5-foot step IMO is esplicitly mentioned because it's not a move action (where all the "move" fall), but it's a miscellaneous action.

EDIT: if tumble is "immune" to ThoB, by the same reasoning Ride by Attack is immune too...

SinsI

2014-02-23, 03:39 PM

This is a discussion that really should be taken to another thread (or, better yet, that should stop here, because it never goes anywhere fun), but in short the RAW status of the 3.5 FAQ is a contentious issue. The FAQ (and, by extension, the Ask the Sage questions that spawned it) is usually useful for divining author's intent, but it has a habit of contradicting the rules that it references, contradicting itself, making up rules where none exist, and referencing rules that do not exist. It also has the problem of not really fitting into WotC's rules hierarchy.

We have two rules (actually, 3 or more, since Spring Attack is also affected by it) that have bad writing that makes them seem to contradict each other.

In that case you have to first ask the ones that created the game for errata or FAQ or other clarification, and only after that go after "Primary source" or "secondary source" or whatever other homebrew opinion you want.
Official ruling is clear, it contradicts nothing, and doesn't make up any new rules or reference anything that does not exist.

What's the problem with just accepting it?

Karnith

2014-02-23, 03:43 PM

What's the problem with just accepting it?
There's not a problem with ruling in a manner consistent with the FAQ, it's just that the FAQ doesn't make said ruling RAW.

Quorothorn

2014-02-23, 04:21 PM

Thicket vs. Tumble is a Melee Nice Thing vs. Melee Nice Thing.

If a caster wants to avoid AoO he has at least a couple dozen ways to do so.

...All in favour of a houserule that means Teleport/Dim Door/etc provoke AoOs when attempted within the reach of someone with Thicket activated, even with a successful defensive casting...? :smallsmile: Throw in that Abrupt Jaunt ACF Conjurers can get, too...

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-23, 04:23 PM

And again, people are treating it like there's an actual answer. Here, a counter-argument:

...any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement, including a 5 ft step, provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally.

Thicket of Blades makes any sort of movement provoke an AoO.

Tumble is not any kind of movement or move action. It applies to other forms of movement. ThoB makes all forms of movement provoke an AoO. Tumble is used to avoid provoking an AoO due to movement.

Ergo, tumble wins.

But that feels hollow and annoying. I'd rather discuss good houserule ideas to deal with the issue, ones where one side doesn't just outright "win." So yeah, I'm thinking either +10 to tumble DC or the stance-user makes a Martial Lore check vs. the tumble check.

EDIT:

...All in favour of a houserule that means Teleport/Dim Door/etc provoke AoOs when attempted within the reach of someone with Thicket activated, even with a successful defensive casting...? :smallsmile: Throw in that Abrupt Jaunt ACF Conjurers can get, too...

I'm in favor! I'm in favor!

3WhiteFox3

2014-02-23, 04:52 PM

But that feels hollow and annoying. I'd rather discuss good houserule ideas to deal with the issue, ones where one side doesn't just outright "win." So yeah, I'm thinking either +10 to tumble DC or the stance-user makes a Martial Lore check vs. the tumble check.

I'd take that one step further.

Thicket of Blades: makes 5 ft. steps and the Withdraw action provoke, increases Tumble DC by 10.

Roots of the Mountain: Tumbling still provokes attacks of opportunity.

This makes RotM stronger and makes ThoB a bit less of a complete shutdown. It also means that even once you get your tumble check high enough to beat the +10 increase with ease, there is still a stance that can counter it.

kirerellim

2014-02-23, 06:46 PM

I'm gonna go with 3WhiteFox3 actually. I've always found roots of the mountain rather useless lol that gives it meaning. Plus, isn't there a way of getting two stances at once later? Cant recall off top of my head.

Karnith

2014-02-23, 06:53 PM

Plus, isn't there a way of getting two stances at once later?
It's an ability you get at Warblade level 20. You can also get a more limited version of said ability via the second level of the Master of Nine PrC.

Deophaun

2014-02-23, 07:00 PM

So, just to throw more fuel on the fire here:

If you are in Thicket of Blades, and you Bull Rush someone, does their movement now provoke from you?

kirerellim

2014-02-23, 07:01 PM

So, just to throw more fuel on the fire here:

If you are in Thicket of Blades, and you Bull Rush someone, does their movement now provoke from you?

... omg. If that worked... omg. That + dungeoncrasher = NOPE

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-23, 07:12 PM

So, just to throw more fuel on the fire here:

If you are in Thicket of Blades, and you Bull Rush someone, does their movement now provoke from you?

Reminds me of the scene from Ong Bak where he knocks the other guy through a window, and jumps out after him to hit him again.

kirerellim

2014-02-24, 01:10 AM

So... would it work? lol

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-24, 01:23 AM

Can you tumble through thicket of blades to avoid AoO?

Thicket of blades makes all movement provoke (normally 5' steps and moving into a threatened square do not, but moving out does).

Tumble makes movement not provoke. Tumble trumps.

SinsI

2014-02-24, 03:00 AM

So... would it work? lol

According to the game authors - yes.

kirerellim

2014-02-24, 04:08 AM

I'm going to have to try that build lol

SiuiS

2014-02-24, 04:14 AM

It's one of those cases where there are two towers, each taller than the other.

Tumble reads:
Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.

Thicket reads:
While you are in this stance, any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step, provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

However, my call is to grant ThoB priority. One reason is that ThoB is much more recent (naturally, since Tumble is Core), so if there was supposed to be an exception to "any sort of movement", it should have been specified in the description.

I personally read that as ThoB being more specific. Tumble is one degree of exception, thicket of blades is two.

Yes that is of immeasurable value in a situation where there are two specific rules each trying to trump the other.

Was going to disagree, but yeah. The only feat I've ever seen that would trump thicker of blades says "you cannot be targeted by attacks of opportunity", so thicket of blades lets you make the AoO, you just can't attack the target, so it sort of peters out.

Segev

2014-02-24, 10:42 AM

Personally, the way I read it, Thicket of Blades makes it so that all actions that cause you to move - even those not normally called out as "move" actions, such as five foot steps - now provoke AoOs.

Tumble says that, if you move less than half your allowed distance in a move action at any point, you may roll Tumble in order to avoid provoking AoOs you otherwise would.

It seems to me that, if you are moving half your Speed or less and you succeed your Tumble check, you do not provoke an AoO even if you are in somebody else's Thicket of Blades.

However, because you are in a Thicket of Blades, you must roll Tumble successfully and be moving half your Speed or less in order to avoid provoking an AoO, even if doing something like Spring Attack, taking a five foot step, or being bull rushed (none of which normally provoke AoOs).

Thicket of Blades can therefore force a Tumbler to roll Tumble even under circumstances in which he needn't bother, and furthermore forces him to move no more than half his Speed when doing so. It still impedes even a Tumbler's mobility...it's just that Tumblers have more mobility to start with.

(And said impediment is "soft," since anybody can shrug and move with impunity...as long as they don't mind provoking AoOs.)

I don't think there's a rules contradiction here. Thicket changes the category of actions that provoke AoOs to include anything that causes you to move. Tumble doesn't cause you to move; it specifies that, if you would otherwise provoke an AoO, but you move no more than half your speed and succeed on a Tumble check, you do not provoke that AoO after all. It in no way negates Thicket's ability to make "all forms of movement" subject to the rules for provoking an AoO; it simply also expands the rules for what one does when one is about to provoke an AoO.

Again, notably, Thicket still causes you to have to move no more than half your speed if you wish to avoid an AoO, where normally one might not need to do so. So it still slows the Tumbler's movement (unless he wishes to provoke the AoO).

Firechanter

2014-02-24, 01:10 PM

Okay first off, I am not sold on the "primary rules" argument. As it has been shown, this argument can go both ways. So by and large I think that RAW status is still a tie.

One reason -- apart from the ones mentioned previously -- why I give priority to ThoB is that I don't find it desirable that virtually anyone with a few ranks in Tumble can just negate an entire combat style. The whole _point_ of ThoB is to grant a Melee character lockdown capabilities normally reserved for Casters. It shouldn't be annulled so easily.

Of course this is a bit of a dilemma, as someone above has put it: "melee nice thing vs melee nice thing". But here I think that characters with ThoB will be much scarcer than characters with Tumble, so they are kind of more exclusive, and thus should get some extra mileage out of that.

Yorrin

2014-02-24, 01:35 PM

This thread has moved me from the ThoB wins to the Tumble wins side of things. Well done thread.

smart stuff in his/her last post

I think this is the crux of it: 5ft steps and Withdraw actions are a form of movement. Tumble is not a form of movement, it's a check that occurs during movement. So ThoB provokes from forms of movement that don't normally provoke. But a Tumble check would still be allowed, and in fact as far as I'm aware this is the only situation where you'd have to roll a Tumble check during a 5ft step to not provoke. The whole "primary source" argument really doesn't affect things much here.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-24, 02:51 PM

Okay first off, I am not sold on the "primary rules" argument. As it has been shown, this argument can go both ways.
Shown where? There are only three primary source books. Tumble is in one of them; Thicket of Blades is not.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-24, 03:02 PM

Shown where? There are only three primary source books. Tumble is in one of them; Thicket of Blades is not.

You make an excellent point.

Segev

2014-02-24, 03:39 PM

One reason -- apart from the ones mentioned previously -- why I give priority to ThoB is that I don't find it desirable that virtually anyone with a few ranks in Tumble can just negate an entire combat style. The whole _point_ of ThoB is to grant a Melee character lockdown capabilities normally reserved for Casters. It shouldn't be annulled so easily.

Note that Tumble still avoiding the provocation of AoOs doesn't shut down Thicket of Blades's movement-denial completely. In order to roll Tumble, the prospective Tumbler must be moving no more than half his movement speed.

So yes, he's immune to the AoO while still moving, unlike anybody else (who can't move at all within the Thicket of Blades without provoking). However, even our tumbler is cut to half speed.

The two rules don't contradict, and don't even negate each other. Both are a nuisance to the other. Which is as higher-level combat should be!

Deophaun

2014-02-24, 04:00 PM

Note that Tumble still avoiding the provocation of AoOs doesn't shut down Thicket of Blades's movement-denial completely. In order to roll Tumble, the prospective Tumbler must be moving no more than half his movement speed.
This is incorrect.

You try to tumble past or through enemies more quickly than normal. By accepting a -10 penalty on your Tumble checks, you can move at your full speed instead of one-half your speed.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-24, 04:07 PM

For that matter, you can Run or Charge and Tumble; see the Sprinting Tumble skill use and associated penalty (Complete Adventurer).

Segev

2014-02-24, 04:13 PM

Hm, that is a good point. I suppose you have to settle for it requiring somebody who dedicates themselves enough to Tumble to get a reliable +24 (minimum) to be able to ignore your single choice of one Stance.

It still doesn't change that, per the RAW, the rules for Tumble and the rules for Thicket of Blades do not contradict. Thicket of Blades forces a Tumble check even on five-foot steps to avoid AoOs, where normally no such check is needed. But the check still works.

Balance-wise, this would be more a problem with static DCs. Fortunately, this one is at least marginally mitigated by the ability to use allies to add 2 to the DC per ally who threatens your target.

Combine this with the Counter that allows you to move with somebody, and at the very least you could count him as provoking for leaving your threatened zone at the starting point, and, if you position yourself right on your immediate action interrupt, for doing so at the ending point. ...though I don't think you'd force the +2, since you're still just one character.

You clearly need a mount!

Tar Palantir

2014-02-24, 04:15 PM

For that matter, you can Run or Charge and Tumble; see the Sprinting Tumble skill use and associated penalty (Complete Adventurer).

And as we all know, boosting skill checks ain't exactly the hardest thing in the world, especially for casters. You'd just end up with most casters taking a cross-class rank in tumble and blowing Divine Insight, Guidance of the Avatar, etc. on it.

Segev

2014-02-24, 04:18 PM

And as we all know, boosting skill checks ain't exactly the hardest thing in the world.

Irrelevant, and still takes dedication.

Irrelevant because balance arguments only impact rules interpretations where there is some clear case of two interpretations being equally valid and one leading to horrid brokenness while they other does not.

The dedication is important to note because every resource spent on pumping this is a resource not spent elsewhere. Thicket of Blades is a class feature, and should be potent because of it, but cases where class features (particularly spells) simply trump broad applications of skills are generally considered bugs more than features.

Svata

2014-02-24, 04:28 PM

And as we all know, boosting skill checks ain't exactly the hardest thing in the world, especially for casters. You'd just end up with most casters taking a cross-class rank in tumble and blowing Divine Insight, Guidance of the Avatar, etc. on it.

Typically (at least as a wizard) I grab a few anyway, because its a nice skill, it can only be used trained, and I have skills to burn. Concentration, Knowledge, and Spellcraft only take so many ranks...

Grim Reader

2014-02-24, 04:40 PM

As I remember from the last time this question came up, Rules Compendium states that when two rules contradict, the more specific one takes precedence.

Thicket of Blades is a more specific case than tumble, so Thicket takes precedence.

Zweisteine

2014-02-24, 04:58 PM

Thicket of Blades makes any sort of movement provoke an AoO.

Tumble is not any kind of movement or move action. It applies to other forms of movement. ThoB makes all forms of movement provoke an AoO. Tumble is used to avoid provoking an AoO due to movement.

Ergo, tumble wins.

First, thicket of blades specifies "any sort of movement." Even if you tumble, you are moving, and thus provoke ThoB. Just because it only modifies your movement does not mean it isn't a type of movement. In other words, I'm saying that ThoB means "any movement" where it says "any sort of movement."

Take as another example the feat Bounding Assault (aka improved spring attack). It says, "your movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from either of these foes." Would that provoke an attack from someone with ThoB? It specifies that your movement does not provoke, much as tumble modifies your movement to avoid attacks, but I think most people would agree that thicket of blades would prevent it, as what ThoB does is take movement that would not provoke, and make it provoke.

Then you look at spring attack itself. It says, "moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity." This one is more ambiguous, as it does say "moving in this way," which implies that it is a different form of movement, rather than an adjustment to movement.

The entire purpose of thicket of blades is to allow attacks of opportunity where you otherwise would get none. If you go into wordings and specific vs specific, you get to the point where it likely blocks little besides 5-foot steps and withdrawing. Tumble is not unlike spring attack/bounding assault; it just says that your movement does not provoke. If tumble says your movement doesn't provoke and thicket of blades says it does, thicket should win, because tumbling is moving.

This next statement is less RAW than RAMS (makes sense) or RAIE (is effective).

Also, tumble is probably the most common method to avoid AoOs, because it allows you to move away from the opponent and still attack (especially if you are an archer facing a giant). ThoB seems to be made just to prevent your opponents from avoiding AoOs. Then denying it the ability to impede tumbling strips it of much of its usefulness.

This isn't RAW at all, but it also seems to make sense.

I occasionally think fluff should be brought up more in this type of discussion. For example, ThoB is you targeting "even the slightest move." Tumbling is most certainly a movement, and it isn't slight at all.

EDIT:

Thicket of Blades is a more specific case than tumble, so Thicket takes precedence.
This has already been brought up a bit. Tumble is no less specific than thicket of blades, as one is a specific case of a skill, and one a specific case of a maneuver.

Grim Reader

2014-02-24, 05:30 PM

This has already been brought up a bit. Tumble is no less specific than thicket of blades, as one is a specific case of a skill, and one a specific case of a maneuver.

I must respectfully disagree. I have looked up the Rules Compendium since my last post, and here is what it says:

"The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application:
General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule
(general or specifi c)."

As I see it, the rule that movement provokes is general. The rule that Tumble does not provoke is a more specific rule. Thicket of Blades is an exception, contradicting this.

Also, the Compendium is pretty clear on trumping the "primary" rulebooks.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-24, 05:35 PM

Also, the Compendium is pretty clear on trumping the "primary" rulebooks.
Yes, it's very clear. (Its authority is entirely self-granted, too. :smallwink:) Its language makes it very clear that it only overrides books previously published, and thus everything in it is superseded by the newest printings of the 3.5 core rulebooks.

Grim Reader

2014-02-24, 05:45 PM

Yes, it's very clear. (Its authority is entirely self-granted, too. :smallwink:) Its language makes it very clear that it only overrides books previously published, and thus everything in it is superseded by the newest printings of the 3.5 core rulebooks.

As an october 2007 book, as far as I know it was the final 3.5 book released.

Was there an edition I missed between there and 4th? :smallwink:)

Firechanter

2014-02-24, 05:49 PM

Icewraith

2014-02-24, 05:57 PM

I must respectfully disagree. I have looked up the Rules Compendium since my last post, and here is what it says:

"The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application:
General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule
(general or specifi c)."

As I see it, the rule that movement provokes is general. The rule that Tumble does not provoke is a more specific rule. Thicket of Blades is an exception, contradicting this.

Also, the Compendium is pretty clear on trumping the "primary" rulebooks.

I think tumble and thicket of blades are both exceptions. However, thicket of blades is a stronger exception.

Normal: Movement provokes.
Tumble: This movement does not provoke.
Thicket of blades: Any movement provokes. 5 foot steps provoke. Withdraw is overridden.

The only reason it doesn't work on teleportation is that teleportation is described as "travel" but not "movement".

Furthermore unless the updated core books contains language contrary to the Compendium (and not just the language it already had regarding primary sources), even under that dubious publishing date argument the order of rules application general->specific->exception is still RAW.

Grim Reader

2014-02-24, 06:01 PM

I think tumble and thicket of blades are both exceptions. However, thicket of blades is a stronger exception.

You could put it that way. I think of it as a "more specific" exception personally. Tumble is in the core book, available to all characters, its going to happen a lot. Thicket of Blades is a much more...specific case. Limited circumstance. Does that make sense?

Firechanter

2014-02-24, 06:10 PM

You could put it that way. I think of it as a "more specific" exception personally. Tumble is in the core book, available to all characters, its going to happen a lot. Thicket of Blades is a much more...specific case. Limited circumstance. Does that make sense?

It does to me.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-24, 06:36 PM

As an october 2007 book, as far as I know it was the final 3.5 book released.

Was there an edition I missed between there and 4th? :smallwink:)

Premium Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Player's Handbook with Errata (http://www.amazon.com/Premium-Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook/dp/0786962461/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393284288&sr=1-2&keywords=Player%27s+Handbook+3.5) by Wizards RPG Team (Sep 18, 2012)
Premium Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide with Errata (http://www.amazon.com/Premium-Dungeons-Dragons-Dungeon-Masters/dp/0786962453/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393284386&sr=1-1&keywords=Premium+Dungeons+%26+Dragons+3.5) by Wizards RPG Team (Sep 18, 2012)
Premium Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Monster Manual with Errata (http://www.amazon.com/Premium-Dungeons-Dragons-Monster-Manual/dp/0786962445/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393284386&sr=1-2&keywords=Premium+Dungeons+%26+Dragons+3.5) by Wizards RPG Team (Sep 18, 2012)
Premium 3.5 Edition Dungeons & Dragons Magic Item Compendium (http://www.amazon.com/Premium-Dungeons-Dragons-Compendium-Accessory/dp/0786964499/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393284386&sr=1-3&keywords=Premium+Dungeons+%26+Dragons+3.5) (D&D Accessory) by Wizards RPG Team (Jul 16, 2013)
Premium 3.5 Edition Dungeons & Dragons Spell Compendium (http://www.amazon.com/Premium-Dungeons-Dragons-Compendium-Accessory/dp/0786964480/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393284386&sr=1-4&keywords=Premium+Dungeons+%26+Dragons+3.5) (D&D Accessory) by Wizards RPG Team (Apr 16, 2013)
The Premium versions are reprints, with Errata modifications. The WotC rule is that Errata changes are non-optional, and the most recent versions are official replacements. Because these books are all more recent than Rules Compendium, basically everything in that book is superseded. This officially removes every rules change that RC introduced. :smallbiggrin:

squiggit

2014-02-24, 06:48 PM

I think Drachasor can read just fine, and implying otherwise is impolite. ThoB explicitly calls out the 5' step and the withdrawal action as provoking when in that stance. That's it. The case of tumbling to avoid an AoO during movement is not mentioned, and thus is still valid.

Possible, but it's also really easy to parse "even a 5 foot step" as merely an example rather than a conclusive list.

I think the strongest argument in favor of tumble so far isn't that Thicket doesn't call out tumble but that tumble isn't a move action, it's a skill check to negate AoOs when you move.

If you are in Thicket of Blades, and you Bull Rush someone, does their movement now provoke from you?

Can you AoO on your own turn? I forgot if that restriction was a 4e only thing or not.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-24, 08:08 PM

This is incorrect.

Alright, let's go through this. With bolding.

Firechanter claimed...

One reason -- apart from the ones mentioned previously -- why I give priority to ThoB is that I don't find it desirable that virtually anyone with a few ranks in Tumble can just negate an entire combat style. The whole _point_ of ThoB is to grant a Melee character lockdown capabilities normally reserved for Casters. It shouldn't be annulled so easily.

Segev then refutes that with....

Note that Tumble still avoiding the provocation of AoOs doesn't shut down Thicket of Blades's movement-denial completely. In order to roll Tumble, the prospective Tumbler must be moving no more than half his movement speed.

Take note of the words he was arguing against. That anyone with a few tumble ranks can negate an entire combat style (side-note: last time I checked, ThoB wasn't an entire combat style). To then refute his statement by saying, "yeah, but you can just boost the DC by +10" (in other words, reduce your success rate by 50%!) invalidates the original claim HE was refuting. It's no longer a case of anyone with just a few ranks. Not even freaking close. Especially not if we're talking about doing it w/o any worry of failing.

Icewraith

2014-02-24, 08:20 PM

The Premium 3.5 books are reprints, any differences between them and the original core books are errata modifications. However, any rules text contained in the new 3.5 core books that is identical to the old 3.5 books is still overridden by RC. Why? Because it's reprinted unmodified text and not covered by the errata.

Deophaun

2014-02-24, 08:21 PM

Alright, let's go through this. With bolding.
Yes. Let's.

Hm, that is a good point. I suppose you have to settle for it requiring somebody who dedicates themselves enough to Tumble to get a reliable +24 (minimum) to be able to ignore your single choice of one Stance.
Apparently Segev and I were on the same page. So, one must wonder what the issue is.

kirerellim

2014-02-24, 08:34 PM

Reading through this, its rather amusing to note its the same exact arguments repeated in different words for 90% of the time lol

nyjastul69

2014-02-24, 08:55 PM

Reading through this, its rather amusing to note its the same exact arguments repeated in different words for 90% of the time lol

No way dude! You are entirely incorrect. It's definitely 93.875% of the time. You couldn't be more incorrect. Sheeeesh! Get it right will you! :smallwink: Read blue.

Mebbe it's a DM call. The rules need one for a reason.

Drachasor

2014-02-24, 09:58 PM

Possible, but it's also really easy to parse "even a 5 foot step" as merely an example rather than a conclusive list.

Except that's not how the rules work. They don't work on "guessing" how to parse them. Thicket is simply not written to specifically indicate tumble, bull rush, and other movement besides 5-foot steps and Withdrawal actions.

For instance, let's look at the SRD on provoking via movement:

Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

And thicket ONLY mentions those as things that provoke. The common methods of avoiding it and that's it.

There's no reason to think it stops anything else. It does NOT specifically list those two as only examples. It does not say "any movement, including movement that normally doesn't provoke."

I haven't heard anyone give a refutation of my argument on this, especially when I pointed out that if you applied this sort of thinking to anything else it would be ridiculous. Such as a spell that hits an area and "Everything within that area is affected by Dominate Monster" with the additional "Protection from Evil and Spell Immunity do not protect against this." This does NOT imply that Mind Blank, Undead, Constructs, or other sorts of protection won't work.

The problem with Thicket is that "Any movement provokes, except Withdrawal and 5-foot steps" is the normal rule. Thicket just says those two normal exceptions no longer apply and that's it. There's nothing special at all about the "any movement" wording. And you can't just read into it how you want it to work.

Deophaun

2014-02-24, 10:22 PM

Except that's not how the rules work.
Well, in 3.5, it kind of is. If the language is imprecise, then you have to guess how to parse them, and 3.5 has a lot of imprecise language, including ThoB.

Drachasor

2014-02-24, 10:26 PM

Well, in 3.5, it kind of is. If the language is imprecise, then you have to guess how to parse them, and 3.5 has a lot of imprecise language, including ThoB.

You can't just assume they override protections. They have to be explicit on that count. Thicket is NOT explicit, except for two specific cases -- which, happen to be the two normal ways to avoid AoO listed under the AoO rules. There's nothing in the text that makes it apply to anything else. 5 foot steps and Withdrawal actions aren't specifically indicated to be examples either.

We're not actually dealing with wording that's imprecise here anyhow. We're dealing with wording that doesn't say what people want it to say.

kirerellim

2014-02-24, 10:46 PM

No way dude! You are entirely incorrect. It's definitely 93.875% of the time. You couldn't be more incorrect. Sheeeesh! Get it right will you! :smallwink: Read blue.

Mebbe it's a DM call. The rules need one for a reason.

Oh yea, the DM call was already made. I'm just watching with the kind of sick fascination that makes people watch train wrecks.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-24, 10:59 PM

Yes, it's very clear. (Its authority is entirely self-granted, too. :smallwink:) Its language makes it very clear that it only overrides books previously published, and thus everything in it is superseded by the newest printings of the 3.5 core rulebooks.

Someone else made an error in precedence anyway. Movement doesn't provoke is the general, thicket of blades would be specific (movement now provokes), and tumble the exception.

Deophaun

2014-02-24, 11:00 PM

You can't just assume they override protections.
Which is why this is "Ask your DM" territory; you can't assume anything.

We're not actually dealing with wording that's imprecise here anyhow. We're dealing with wording that doesn't say what people want it to say.
Like "only five foot steps and withdrawal actions." The wording is terrible, as it can be read either way.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-24, 11:19 PM

The Premium 3.5 books are reprints, any differences between them and the original core books are errata modifications.
If all the differences are errata, then those include new errata not previously released on the Official D&D Errata page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20060531a). Check out Spring Attack in the original Player's Handbook (pages 100-101), the last (2006) PH Errata file (no changes listed for the feat or for those pages), and the Premium Player's Handbook. That feat is worded differently (and more clearly) than in the original.

They're not just reprints of the originals + published errata files. They're the latest versions of the D&D 3.5 rules.

Drachasor

2014-02-24, 11:23 PM

Which is why this is "Ask your DM" territory; you can't assume anything.

Yes you can. An ability doesn't do anything unless it explicitly says it does. That's how all abilities work. Anything beyond that is house-ruling.

Thicket doesn't explicitly say it overcomes AoO avoidance or protections except in two cases. Saying it does anything beyond that is house-ruling.

Like "only five foot steps and withdrawal actions." The wording is terrible, as it can be read either way.

Seems pretty clear unless you want it to apply to Tumble (but want and RAW are not remotely the same). Especially since the two overrides it has are the two standard ways to avoid AoOs.

Again, something doesn't override protections unless it explicitly says it does. Thicket does not explicitly says it does. It just says "all movement"...but that's how movement-based AoOs work anyway, so it is just repeating the standard rule.

georgie_leech

2014-02-25, 12:17 AM

I've always seen it as THoB causing other types of movement that don't provoke AoO's to provoke, but there's nothing indicating that Tumble checks to then ignore that AoO can't be made. Less of a specific trumps general issue than which rule applies first. Though now that I think of it, is the choice to Tumble made at the start of movement, or in response to an AoO?

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 12:27 AM

I've always seen it as THoB causing other types of movement that don't provoke AoO's to provoke,

Except that's not what it says. It's just what people want it to say.

Thicket has basically 3 statements:
1. All movement within your threatened area provokes an AoO.
2. 5-foot steps in this area provoke.
3. Withdrawal actions within this area provoke.

(1) This is already true for everyone. Like a number of feats or abilities, this part does nothing.
(2) This means 5-foot steps provoke; that means something.
(3) This means withdrawal provokes; that means something.

Note that (1) doesn't say "even if it normally doesn't provoke" or anything else that would remove AoO avoidance mechanisms -- except for 5-foot steps of course, and later withdrawal actions.

Note further that (2) and (3) are the only things listed in the combat section for AoOs that ignore the movement rule for provoke. All thicket is saying is that the standard ways to avoid AoOs (withdrawal and 5-foot steps) don't work.

It doesn't say anything else. It doesn't say other ways to avoid AoOs don't work. If (2) and (3) weren't there, then Thicket would do nothing.

georgie_leech

2014-02-25, 12:29 AM

Except that's not what it says. It's just what people want it to say.

Thicket has basically 3 statements:
1. All movement within your threatened area provokes an AoO.
2. 5-foot steps in this area provoke.
3. Withdrawal actions within this area provoke.

(1) This is already true for everyone. Like a number of feats or abilities, this part does nothing.
(2) This means 5-foot steps provoke; that means something.
(3) This means withdrawal provokes; that means something.

Note that (1) doesn't say "even if it normally doesn't provoke" or anything else that would remove AoO avoidance mechanisms -- except for 5-foot steps of course, and later withdrawal actions.

Note further that (2) and (3) are the only things listed in the combat section for AoOs that ignore the movement rule for provoke. All thicket is saying is that the standard ways to avoid AoOs (withdrawal and 5-foot steps) don't work.

It doesn't say anything else. It doesn't say other ways to avoid AoOs don't work. If (2) and (3) weren't there, then Thicket would do nothing.

If you read the next part of the same sentence, I go on to say that you can then Tumble as normal to avoid said AoO, so I'm not sure what the objection is. :smallconfused:

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 12:39 AM

If you read the next part of the same sentence, I go on to say that you can then Tumble as normal to avoid said AoO, so I'm not sure what the objection is. :smallconfused:

Just that everyone is saying Thicket causes movement that doesn't provoke to provoke -- but that's not what it says.

Bull Rush doesn't provoke under Thicket, nor do a lot of types of movement that don't provoke. It only affects 5-foot steps and Withdrawal actions. That's it.

Any movement that says "this doesn't provoke an AoO", doesn't provoke. Thicket doesn't say that it overcomes any sort of AoO avoidance except for 5-foot steps and Withdrawal actions, so those are the only two it overcomes. It has no general text that says it overcomes other sorts.

squiggit

2014-02-25, 01:24 AM

Just that everyone is saying Thicket causes movement that doesn't provoke to provoke -- but that's not what it says.

Bull Rush doesn't provoke under Thicket, nor do a lot of types of movement that don't provoke. It only affects 5-foot steps and Withdrawal actions. That's it.

Any movement that says "this doesn't provoke an AoO", doesn't provoke. Thicket doesn't say that it overcomes any sort of AoO avoidance except for 5-foot steps and Withdrawal actions, so those are the only two it overcomes. It has no general text that says it overcomes other sorts.

We're not actually dealing with wording that's imprecise here anyhow. We're dealing with wording that doesn't say what people want it to say.

Your own quote is rather apt here: You want the ability to say "5 foot steps and Withdrawal actions provoke Attacks of Opportunty" when it clearly does not, the test reads "...any movement, including...".

Nothing in the text suggests it's an all inclusive list (if anything it's more obviously a nonrestrictive relative clause).

Frankly if your interpretation was correct I don't know why they'd choose such an obtuse way of saying it. Sure ToB has a reputation for problems with writing but usually not because it's excessively verbose.

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 01:26 AM

Your own quote is rather apt here: You want the ability to say "5 foot steps and Withdrawal actions provoke Attacks of Opportunty" when it clearly does not, the test reads "...any movement, including...".

AoO rules in general say the same thing, with "except" instead of "including".

Nothing in the text suggests it's an all inclusive list (if anything it's more obviously a nonrestrictive relative clause).

The text needs to be explicit if it is NOT an inclusive list, not the other way around. It doesn't explicitly indicate it isn't an inclusive list. It uses basically the same wording as the standard AoO rules, except it instead of having Withdrawal and 5-foot steps as exceptions it says "even those." It does not remotely touch on any other form of AoO avoidance.

Again, saying "all movement" doesn't mean a dang thing when AoO in threatened areas already apply to "all movement".

squiggit

2014-02-25, 01:39 AM

The text needs to be explicit if it is NOT an inclusive list, not the other way around.
"any movement" is pretty straight forward.

Again, saying "all movement" doesn't mean a dang thing when AoO in threatened areas already apply to "all movement".
That's actually wrong. The section on Attacks of Opportunity in the SRD specifically mentions 5-foot step and withdrawal actions as not provoking.

You still haven't explained why the text is so obtuse if it's only supposed to apply to 5-foot steps and withdrawal actions (they could have cut out more than half the text and simply written that 5-foot steps and withdrawal actions provoke).

One of the golden rules for interpreting RAW has always been that if there's two ways to parse something and one of them makes an ability needlessly weaker (or needlessly stronger) and requires some weird interpretations of the writing (parsing "any, including a 5-foot step" as "only a 5-foot step" fits there I think) that it's probably safe to discard that version.

eggynack

2014-02-25, 01:39 AM

Again, saying "all movement" doesn't mean a dang thing when AoO in threatened areas already apply to "all movement".
No they don't. It says, "Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity," which means that always provoking an attack of opportunity may represent a meaningful shift.

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 01:55 AM

"any movement" is pretty straight forward.

That's actually wrong. The section on Attacks of Opportunity in the SRD specifically mentions 5-foot step and withdrawal actions as not provoking.

I did say that.

You still haven't explained why the text is so obtuse if it's only supposed to apply to 5-foot steps and withdrawal actions (they could have cut out more than half the text and simply written that 5-foot steps and withdrawal actions provoke).

One of the golden rules for interpreting RAW has always been that if there's two ways to parse something and one of them makes an ability needlessly weaker (or needlessly stronger) and requires some weird interpretations of the writing (parsing "any, including a 5-foot step" as "only a 5-foot step" fits there I think) that it's probably safe to discard that version.

I don't think the text is obtuse at all. There are quite a few abilities that restate how things normally work, even without mentioning it. There are quite a few that even do nothing you can't already do.

More significantly, you don't ignore a protection or avoidance ability that explicitly spells out that protection or avoidance, unless the overriding ability explicitly says so. Thicket doesn't say "all movement provokes, even movement that normally doesn't provoke." It just says (paraphrasing) "all movement provokes, even 5-foot steps and withdrawal actions." That's simply not enough to justify it applying to Bull Rushes, Tumbling, any any other sort of movement that explicitly says it doesn't provoke.

No they don't. It says, "Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity," which means that always provoking an attack of opportunity may represent a meaningful shift.

Because it immediately mentions the two common exceptions. But unless something says it is an exception, then any movement provokes.

From a RAW perspective there's no difference between something saying "X always happens" and "X usually happens, here are two times when it doesn't". If those two times both say "X doesn't happen." Because an ability saying "X doesn't happen" overrules anything saying "X does happen" unless that second ability goes on and say "X does happen, even if another ability says X doesn't happen."

Thicket doesn't say it overwhelms any sort of exception. It only says it overrides two specific types.

Can either of you tell me why somehow this is ok for Thicket, but not ok for Fire Damage vs. Fire Immunity, or my hypthetical AoE Domination that overrides Spell Immunity and Protection From Alignment spells? Because I'm not seeing the difference.

Because the following is what I am hearing:

(a) Fireball does Fire Damage to everything in the area -- no exceptions. Why exactly does Evasion or Fire Immunity stop that then? They still have to take fire damage, right? Because the spell says they take fire damage if they are in that area!

(b) Similarly, an AoE Domination Spell that affected everyone in the area with Dominate Monster "even if they are affected by Protection from Evil/Good/Law/Chaos or Spell Immunity" overrides Mindblank too and it also affects Undead and Constructs.

Now, if one of you can say why Thicket works on Tumble, but A and B aren't true, please do so.

Gwendol

2014-02-25, 01:58 AM

No they don't. It says, "Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity," which means that always provoking an attack of opportunity may represent a meaningful shift.

Well, there are a number of situations that may interfere with the AoO such as cover, invisibility/blindness. I don't think ThoB does anything to change that.

squiggit

2014-02-25, 02:10 AM

I don't think the text is obtuse at all.

Saying "Any movement, including a five foot step" when what you actually mean is "five foot step" is definitely obtuse. By your definition the "any movement, including" section of the passage is literally there for absolutely no reason at all.

Thicket doesn't say it overwhelms any sort of exception. It only says it overrides two specific types.

Not quite, it says it provokes on "any movement".

The two exceptions it lists are things that would not normally apply under that definition: 5-foot steps are not a traditional form of movement (they're no action and do not interact with other effects in the same way) and Withdrawal Actions do not prevent attacks of opportunity. Instead it causes the square you're in to no longer be threatened.

Ergo both exceptions are required because they wouldn't be covered by "any movement"

Can either of you tell me why somehow this is ok for Thicket, but not ok for Fire Damage vs. Fire Immunity, or my hypthetical AoE Domination that overrides Spell Immunity and Protection From Alignment spells? Because I'm not seeing the difference.
If your hypothetical Fire Spell said it "ignored any form of resistance or immunity" then yes, it would be the same.

Though if it said "ignored an form of resistance or immunity, including spell immunity" you'd be telling me it didn't bypass fire resistance.

(a) Fireball does Fire Damage to everything in the area -- no exceptions. Why exactly does Evasion or Fire Immunity stop that then? They still have to take fire damage, right? Because the spell says they take fire damage if they are in that area!
That's laughably disingenuous though. Fireball says nothing about ignoring resistance or evasion while Thicket specifically mentions that it overrides its exceptions.

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 02:26 AM

Saying "Any movement, including a five foot step" when what you actually mean is "five foot step" is definitely obtuse. By your definition the "any movement, including" section of the passage is literally there for absolutely no reason at all.

It also means Withdrawal actions too, apparently. It's not obtuse really. Probably could be written a bit better, but it isn't that bad.

Not quite, it says it provokes on "any movement".

The two exceptions it lists are things that would not normally apply under that definition: 5-foot steps are not a traditional form of movement (they're no action and do not interact with other effects in the same way) and Withdrawal Actions do not prevent attacks of opportunity. Instead it causes the square you're in to no longer be threatened.

Ergo both exceptions are required because they wouldn't be covered by "any movement"

5-foot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#take5FootStep) steps are movement. Withdrawal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#withdraw)actions are movement.
Or are you saying you can 5-foot step after making a Withdrawal Action?

Movement is not limited to move-actions. It never has been. You are making a distinction where there is none.

I guess your misunderstanding here comes from not understanding what "movement" is.

If your hypothetical Fire Spell said it "ignored any form of resistance or immunity" then yes, it would be the same.

Though if it said "ignored an form of resistance or immunity, including spell immunity" you'd be telling me it didn't bypass fire resistance.

That's laughably disingenuous though. Fireball says nothing about ignoring resistance or evasion while Thicket specifically mentions that it overrides its exceptions.

Why does Fireball need to say that and Thicket of Blades does not? Why does Fireball need to say it ignores resistances, immunity, or evasion if Thicket Of Blades doesn't need to?

If Fireball said it ignored Evasion, would it also ignore resistance or immunity? If it side it still damaged creatures of the Fire sub-type would it then ignore resistance and evasion?

That's what you are saying with Thicket. Because it says that it ignores two-kinds of AoO ignoring moves, it must ignore them all. That's like saying if Fireball ignore Fire Resistance 5 and 10, then it ignores Immunity and Evasion and anything else (such as being incorporeal).

squiggit

2014-02-25, 02:42 AM

It also means Withdrawal actions too, apparently. It's not obtuse really. Probably could be written a bit better, but it isn't that bad.
The bit about withdrawal actions is a separate sentence and not in the part about "any form of movement". That section only mentions the 5-foot step.

Which is part of the reason I have trouble accepting your interpretation, we have to outright ignore a full half of the sentence describing the stance's core function and just assume it's superfluous language.

It very well might be, sure. I'm just not convinced.

5-foot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#take5FootStep) steps are movement.
Yes, but it does not act like normal movement.
Withdrawal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#withdraw)actions are movement.
I never said withdrawal actions weren't movement. I said withdrawal actions do not stop Attacks of Opportunity. Instead it makes the square you're in no longer count as threatened. Specifically mention Withdrawal is necessary because you no longer threaten that square according to the text of Withdrawal Action. Thicket in turn says that Withdrawals no longer make the square they're in unthreatened.

Why does Fireball need to say that and Thicket of Blades does not?
But thicket does. "Any form of movement...provokes an attack of opportunity from you".

That's like saying if Fireball ignore Fire Resistance 5 and 10, then it ignores Immunity.
No. That's like saying if Fireball ignored all forms of damage reduction, including immunity, it would also ignore resistance even though it only mentions immunity by name.

SinsI

2014-02-25, 02:53 AM

There's a Tome of Battle Errata for it:/
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0

Page 61 - Thicket of Blades [Addition]
Add "The Tumble skill cannot be used to avoid the attack of opportunity this stance grants. In addition, lower level maneuvers that specifically state that they do not provoke an attack of opportunity are subjected to Thicket of Blades' effect. Maneuvers of equal or higher level than the Thicket of Blades stance are unaffected." to the end of the stance's text.

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 02:57 AM

The bit about withdrawal actions is a separate sentence and not in the part about "any form of movement".

Which is part of the reason I have trouble accepting your interpretation, we have to pretend a half of the sentence describing the stance's core function should be ignored.

Yes, but it does not act like normal movement.

Yes it does. Did you move from one square to an adjacent square? Yes? Then that's movement. PERIOD.

You are making distinctions where there are none.

Hmm, let's compare this to fireball....

"A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area."

OMG, you are ignoring part of Fireball's sentence that describes its "core function!" It hurts EVERYONE and lists no exceptions!

I never said withdrawal actions weren't movement. I said withdrawal actions do not stop Attacks of Opportunity. Instead it makes the square you're in no longer count as threatened. Specifically mention Withdrawal is necessary because you no longer threaten that square according to the text of Withdrawal Action. Thicket in turn says that Withdrawals no longer make the square they're in unthreatened.

You have a point there. But it doesn't change my central argument.

But thicket does. "Any form of movement...provokes an attack of opportunity from you".

Again, that's no different than the normal rules. Any form of movement provokes. Unless the movement says it doesn't provoke.

Fireball deals 1d6 damage/CL fire damage to everyone in the area (save for half). Unless they have some ability that says otherwise.

No. That's like saying if Fireball ignored all forms of damage reduction, including immunity, it would also ignore resistance even though it only mentions immunity by name.

Thicket doesn't say it affects all movement, even movement that is except from AoO. It just says "all movement." Much like Fireball says it hurts "all enemies." Thicket doesn't say that exceptions to what it gives you (AoOs) don't apply -- except for 5-foot steps and Withdrawal actions. You can't just say "oh, then it must ignore all AoO-immune movement!" -- it does not say it does so you cannot assume it does. Just like Fireball doesn't ignore fire immunity, incorporeal, and other things that stop damage just because it hurts "everyone in the area."

It's very easy to see which is more specific between the two following:
"Whenever someone moves in your threatened area, they provoke an AoO." -- standard rule

"Even when you move in someone's threatened area, you don't provoke an AoO." -- exception.

To overcome the exception, you'd need to be very specific about it...
"Whenever someone moves in your threatened area, they provoke an AoO -- even if that movement normally wouldn't."

Fireball and Super Fantastic Fireball would be the same way.
Fireball: "...fire damage to everyone in the area."

Super Fantastic Fireball "...fire damage to everyone in the area -- even if they would otherwise be except due to immunity, incorporeality, or any other ability that lessens or avoids damage."

Thicket is just repeating the standard way threatened areas work, then adding in 5' steps. That's it. You don't get to toss in Tumble, Bull Rushes, and so forth just because you think that ought to be how it works. This sort of thing, by necessity, must be explicit. "All movement" is no more explicit than "all enemies." They aren't sufficient to ignore things that explicitly protect against what is being done.

Edit: Btw, you should never have an energy-based damage saying it "ignores all forms of damage reduction" since damage reduction is a term that applies specifically to physical damage.

There's a Tome of Battle Errata for it:/
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0

Page 61 - Thicket of Blades [Addition]
Add "The Tumble skill cannot be used to avoid the attack of opportunity this stance grants. In addition, lower level maneuvers that specifically state that they do not provoke an attack of opportunity are subjected to Thicket of Blades' effect. Maneuvers of equal or higher level than the Thicket of Blades stance are unaffected." to the end of the stance's text.

Note that's unofficial. But it is the sort of statement that would be needed.

Killer Angel

2014-02-25, 07:10 AM

Firechanter

2014-02-25, 07:18 AM

Yeah - except if it was supposed to affect, you know, ~any~ movement. Which I guess is what you are trying to imply.

BTW, the author in your sig is spelled "Whitman" ;)

Killer Angel

2014-02-25, 07:23 AM

Yeah - except if it was supposed to affect, you know, ~any~ movement. Which I guess is what you are trying to imply.

Yes, pretty much. :smallwink:

BTW, the author in your sig is spelled "Whitman" ;)

whoops. Tnx. :smallredface:

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 07:31 AM

One could wonder why they even needed to include "any sort of movement provokes an attack of opportunity", if really they intended to limit the AoOs granted by ThoB, only to withdrawal and 5-foot steps.
Because, at that point, "any sort of movement" is a totally pointless specification.

5-foot steps (which it felt it had to specify, mind you), running, normal moves, double-moves, flying, swimming, burrowing, climbing, and so forth. Also withdrawals.

If "any sort of movement" meant "any kind of movement whatsoever, even movement that specifically says it doesn't provoke" then why mention 5-foot steps? Because YOU HAVE TO, otherwise the 5-foot step line about not provoking takes precedence.

Look at it as layers.
1. Normally, any sort of movement in a threatened area provokes.
Saying it twice doesn't change that.
2. To not provoke, an ability needs to specifically says it overrides what is normal.
3. To cause something that doesn't provoke to provoke, then it needs to specifically say it provokes even then. That's why 5-foot steps are even mentioned.

This is like saying a feat designed to counter Casting on the Defensive just needs to say "spellcasting provokes in your threatened area", but that's just not enough because it is too vague. You end up with something that by RAW does nothing. And there are badly made feats that do nothing.

And again, there are a lot of things in the game that have "pointless specification" or are badly worded. So that's nothing new. That's an argument trying to go at RAI, and not RAW. This is what happens when an ability isn't specific enough. Specificity is completely necessary when overriding protections. It's why Fireball doesn't ignore Fire Immunity or Incorporeality. Among a host of other things. Just because an ability says "This does X to all Y" doesn't mean that it overrides protections against X -- it must SAY it does. Thicket of Blades does not say it does, except for two cases.

Anyhow, just curious, are you saying that Tumblers, Invisible Creatures moving, Bull Rushing, and anything else that moves people provokes an AoO? In other words, what would be required in your mind to protect you from Thicket of Blades? Or for some reason does it override every sort of AoO protection? If it doesn't, then why doesn't it? Please indicate the relevant rules.

Killer Angel

2014-02-25, 07:44 AM

Look at it as layers.
1. Normally, any sort of movement in a threatened area provokes.
Saying it twice doesn't change that.

It creates confusion, 'cause people may consider relevant what's written.

As you say:

And again, there are a lot of things in the game that have "pointless specification" or are badly worded. So that's nothing new.

ThoB could have been written in a better way. They didn't, hence the debate.
For example:

5-foot steps (which it felt it had to specify, mind you),
I could say they needed to specify the 5-foot steps, cause it's not a move, it's a miscellaneous action.
And unofficial errata (as the one previously posted) that favor ThoB, don't help.
But I'm digressing.

Anyhow, just curious, are you saying that Tumblers, Invisible Creatures moving, Bull Rushing, and anything else that moves people provokes an AoO? In other words, what would be required in your mind to protect you from Thicket of Blades? Or for some reason does it override every sort of AoO protection? If it doesn't, then why doesn't it? Please indicate the relevant rules.

All movements provoke AoO. But the character with ThoB must be able to do the AoO. If you can't see invisible creatures, or if there is cover, and so on, then you are not able to make your attack, even if the stance entitles you to do it.

Drachasor

2014-02-25, 07:55 AM

It creates confusion, 'cause people may consider relevant what's written.

Obviously it creates confusion. People seem to be adding stuff that it doesn't say, such as overcoming "does not provoke an AoO" abilities besides the two specified.

ThoB could have been written in a better way. They didn't, hence the debate.
For example:

I could say they needed to specify the 5-foot steps, cause it's not a move, it's a miscellaneous action.

Bull Rush isn't a move either. Nor is a Run. Except they ARE. Read the rules again. Moving doesn't require a Move Action.

All movements provoke AoO. But the character with ThoB must be able to do the AoO. If you can't see invisible creatures, or if there is cover, and so on, then you are not able to make your attack, even if the stance entitles you to do it.

Three things.
1. Why does Bull Rush provoke now? You just said it wouldn't because it "isn't a move." Similarly, should charge not work either? It's "not a move" by your "must have a move action" definition you seemed to use above.

2. Why not Cover and Invisible Creatures?

Here's the relevant bit:

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Why does that apply but Tumble doesn't?

3. Now explain to me why Fireball doesn't ignore Incorporeal. "all creatures in the area" take X damage from it. Why does that allow exceptions but Thicket doesn't?

Again, I want to know why you say "this, but not that."

Killer Angel

2014-02-25, 08:03 AM

I need to go to work, so I'll answer this evening, but just to clarify this:

2. Why not Cover and Invisible Creatures?

Normally, with cover, your move provokes AoO. But the attacks cannot be made.
There's a difference between to provoke an AoO, and the ability to do an AoO.

For example, if I've used my AoO(s) for the turn, you can provoke another AoO, but i won't be able to attack you.

Segev

2014-02-25, 09:02 AM

Yes. Let's.

Apparently Segev and I were on the same page. So, one must wonder what the issue is.

I'll note that you're both actually right: I agreed that it shouldn't be too easy to negate an entire fighting style, but I also was being a touch snarky with my "I suppose you'll have to settle for..." line, because getting a +24 is non-trivial. It's not impossible, and isn't even too terribly hard if you work towards it, but "if you work towards it" means it is, as I said, non-trivial. Thus, it is not easy to negate Thicket of Blades completely.

Just to reiterate my argument on the rules interaction: Under normal circumstances, only certain movement provokes. With Thicket of Blades, all movement provokes. Tumble allows you to, when your movement would provoke, roll against a DC dependent on how fast you're moving and how many people you're Tumbling past to avoid provoking those AoOs.

Thicket increases the number of situations in which you must use Tumble to avoid AoOs, but it doesn't shut them down. Tumble is not movement; Tumble overrides AoO provocation.

Thicket, meanwhile, overrides "special" movement rules that say they don't provoke, because they are movement. Tumble is not movement, and is not overridden by (and doesn't conflict with) Thicket. Tumble is an ability that modifies what your response to an AoO is: it changes it from "hope your AC is good enough" to "roll this and you aren't hit."

Personally, I think it would be smoother and more interesting if Tumble did for AoOs what Mounted Combat does with Ride for an attack on your mount: set your AC to be the result of your Tumble roll. But that would be a house rule.

Killer Angel

2014-02-25, 01:39 PM

As promised...

snip

Again, I want to know why you say "this, but not that."

Initially, I wanted to debate every point, but i realized I was going to enter a swamp of little details and minutiae. Plus, some of those points, weren't mine (all the fireball thing, is a provocation about the primary / secondary source, and it doesn't arrive from me).

So, I'll summarize my position, trying to keep it simple.

By RAW, ThoB says that any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement, provokes an AaO from you.
Make of that what you want: as written, is merely a repetition of the basic core rule, before adding exceptions. Pretty weird: if this was the intention, the text of the stance should have been only something ala "While you are in this stance, any withdrawal or 5-foot steps, provoke an AoO from you". Simpler and clearer, without that superfluous text. Unless that text means actually something.

And this, brings us to RAI: what was the intention behind this stance?
The "any movement provokes AoO", is really an empty filler? Or was it included for a reason?
Unofficial errata (brilliantgameologists) says that ThoB trumps tumble.
Pathfinder's Q&A says the same (after all, PF is derived from 3.5 and compatible with).
It appears that, even if not official, there is a tendency, to consider ThoB "winning" upon things ala tumble.
And that is my opinion as well.

mangosta71

2014-02-25, 03:05 PM

Per the PHB, you still provoke AoOs when you use the withdraw action - it's just that your (visible) opponents no longer threaten the square that you start in. It even has a little diagram showing an example of someone using the withdraw action. He doesn't provoke for leaving the first square, but he does when he leaves the second.

I'm curious as to the source of the errata on ThoB. Is that something that someone at brilliantgameologists came up with, or was he citing an official source when he said that? (Can't check that site myself due to work filters.)

Firechanter

2014-02-25, 04:10 PM

I'm curious as to the source of the errata on ThoB. Is that something that someone at brilliantgameologists came up with, or was he citing an official source when he said that? (Can't check that site myself due to work filters.)

Kinda the former; iirc these errata were not written by a single person but by a bunch of users on BG working together. It kinda shows at some points, because some points reek of compromise between two or more rather different viewpoints.
A part of these errata is quite good, but still by no means official, and there is also a significant portion which I thoroughly disagree with, so I'd refuse to use them as written in my game.

ksbsnowowl

2014-02-25, 04:17 PM

Kinda the former; iirc these errata were not written by a single person but by a bunch of users on BG working together. It kinda shows at some points, because some points reek of compromise between two or more rather different viewpoints.
A part of these errata is quite good, but still by no means official, and there is also a significant portion which I thoroughly disagree with, so I'd refuse to use them as written in my game.

It is a compilation of Customer Service responses.

Firechanter

2014-02-25, 04:19 PM

It is a compilation of Customer Service responses.

Hum, we might be talking about two different things here.

ksbsnowowl

2014-02-25, 04:30 PM

Hum, we might be talking about two different things here.

After a quick google, it appears we are. Apologies.

Icewraith

2014-02-25, 04:34 PM

I'll note that you're both actually right: I agreed that it shouldn't be too easy to negate an entire fighting style, but I also was being a touch snarky with my "I suppose you'll have to settle for..." line, because getting a +24 is non-trivial. It's not impossible, and isn't even too terribly hard if you work towards it, but "if you work towards it" means it is, as I said, non-trivial. Thus, it is not easy to negate Thicket of Blades completely.

Just to reiterate my argument on the rules interaction: Under normal circumstances, only certain movement provokes. With Thicket of Blades, all movement provokes. Tumble allows you to, when your movement would provoke, roll against a DC dependent on how fast you're moving and how many people you're Tumbling past to avoid provoking those AoOs.

Thicket increases the number of situations in which you must use Tumble to avoid AoOs, but it doesn't shut them down. Tumble is not movement; Tumble overrides AoO provocation.

No. Tumble specifically states it is done as "a part of normal movement" at least on the SRD.

Thicket, meanwhile, overrides "special" movement rules that say they don't provoke, because they are movement. Tumble is not movement, and is not overridden by (and doesn't conflict with) Thicket. Tumble is an ability that modifies what your response to an AoO is: it changes it from "hope your AC is good enough" to "roll this and you aren't hit."

Personally, I think it would be smoother and more interesting if Tumble did for AoOs what Mounted Combat does with Ride for an attack on your mount: set your AC to be the result of your Tumble roll. But that would be a house rule.

It could be the designers didn't feel the need to call out Tumble specifically because it counts as movement and is already covered under the phrase "any movement".

squiggit

2014-02-25, 04:44 PM

3. Now explain to me why Fireball doesn't ignore Incorporeal. "all creatures in the area" take X damage from it. Why does that allow exceptions but Thicket doesn't?

Because nothing in Fireball's description says anything about beating anything.

Again, that's no different than the normal rules.
No, because the normal rules explicitly say that AoO only effects certain forms of movement. Thicket explicitly says it effects any movement.

Again, the crux of the issue: You're asserting that the "any form of movement" section of the ability's description is there for absolutely no reason at all. Instead of making all these strawmen arguments about fireballs you could instead explain why you feel that section of the ability's description is superfluous language and should be edited out.

I just don't find "Trust me guys, ignore that part" to be a compelling position on its own and I don't see why it's so terrible to be skeptical of that.

kirerellim

2014-02-26, 05:23 AM

Because nothing in Fireball's description says anything about beating anything.

Well, I'm not a specialist or anything, but I can see where the idea comes from. It says does damage to creatures in area. But ethereal creatures have that 50% miss chance thing. So, they have that.

Ticket of Blades says it allows AoO's against all movement. Tumble says it allows you to move without giving attacks of opportunity. So... why not?

Drachasor

2014-02-26, 05:31 AM

Because nothing in Fireball's description says anything about beating anything.

Let's focus on this.

Let's propose three spells and look at them, REALLY look at them and compare them to Thicket.

Super Fireball (SF) has as part of the text: Everyone within the area takes the damage, even if they have Resistance 10 or 5.

Better Fireball (BF) has as part of the text: Everyone within the area takes the damage, even if they have Resistance or Immunity.

Dominate Area (DA): All creatures in the area are dominated as per Dominate Monster, even Protection From Evil or Spell Immunity cannot protect from this effect.

So, does SF and BF both deal full damage to incorporeal creatures? Does SF deal full damage to Fire Immunes? Does Dominate Area dominate creatures defended by Mind Blank? Does it affect Undead and Constructs?

Because that's how you are saying Thicket of Blades works. It says it bypasses two protections, therefore it bypasses all of them. Just because it says "any movement" as part of a general description. A creature or ability or something says it isn't affect? Well, that doesn't matter because this bypasses two specific protections therefore it bypasses all of them!

That's just now how the rules work.

Thicket says 5-foot step and withdraw won't help and that any movement provokes. Tumble says "this movement does not provoke." That's a clear cut counter to a simple "any movement provokes". Abilities only do exactly what they say they do. They only bypass exactly what they say they bypass. That much and no more.

Might not be RAI -- that's a whole 'nother debate. It is RAW though.

Killer Angel

2014-02-26, 06:49 AM

Might not be RAI -- that's a whole 'nother debate. It is RAW though.

So be it. I've devoted enough energies to this debate. :smallwink:

squiggit

2014-02-26, 11:12 AM

SiuiS

2014-02-26, 11:22 AM

I can't help it, this "primate of primary" would mean that no Splat feat or ability does anything, ever, if it does something contradicting the core rules.

"You got Pounce? Too bad, PHB pg. 155 says you can only attack once on a charge no matter what."
You get the idea.

To me this is pretty much the same situation. Rulebook clearly states something. Splatbook says "anyway!". Splatbook wins.

The primacy of first printing also means that the PHB tells you itself that if any other source is more specific it is more important than the general case in the PHB itself.

eggynack

2014-02-26, 11:35 AM

Creatures in the area always take full damage, including creatures immune to fire damage.
I think the problem that Drachasor is having with this argument is that thicket of blades doesn't say this. It doesn't say, "Movement always provokes, including creatures that are immune to AoO's." It just says, "Movement always provokes, including in these cases."

Segev

2014-02-26, 12:10 PM

No. Tumble specifically states it is done as "a part of normal movement" at least on the SRD.

It could be the designers didn't feel the need to call out Tumble specifically because it counts as movement and is already covered under the phrase "any movement".

Er, I don't think your point is supported by the rules you quote. Tumble is done "as part of normal movement." "As part of" does not mean "is." It means it is something done in addition to but within the same action as. It is done while moving. It is not, itself, movement. It is done "as part of" movement. So, too, is drawing a weapon if you have a BAB of +1 or higher; I doubt you're going to argue that that provokes AoOs when within Thicket of Blades, are you? It is done "as part of" a move action.

So, too, is Tumble.

mangosta71

2014-02-26, 12:58 PM

Er, I don't think your point is supported by the rules you quote. Tumble is done "as part of normal movement." "As part of" does not mean "is." It means it is something done in addition to but within the same action as. It is done while moving. It is not, itself, movement. It is done "as part of" movement. So, too, is drawing a weapon if you have a BAB of +1 or higher; I doubt you're going to argue that that provokes AoOs when within Thicket of Blades, are you? It is done "as part of" a move action.

So, too, is Tumble.
Of course drawing a weapon doesn't provoke, but if a character moves while drawing a weapon then the movement provokes. They're not arguing whether tumbling itself provokes. They're arguing whether the movement taken while tumbling provokes.

Tumble says you don't provoke with a successful check. Just like pretty much everything else, the DC is so low it's basically an auto-success by the time a character reaches level 5. Thicket of Blades says that any movement provokes (including two specific cases of movement that normally does not), but does not explicitly mention movement while tumbling. It could be reasonably interpreted either way.

Drachasor

2014-02-26, 01:20 PM

Neither your "super fireball" or "better fireball" are worded in the same way though, a better way to put it would be:

Creatures in the area always take full damage, including creatures immune to fire damage.

And the question then would be, would someone with resist 5 fire take full damage or 5 less?

That's not really a valid comparison. Thicket of Blades says "any movement...provokes." It doesn't say "any movement always provokes."

You are also making a conflation there since Resistance->Immunity is pretty much a graduated scale. There's no such graduated scale for Attacks of Opportunity. Just curious, are you saying that in your example Evasion and Incorporeality do nothing?

Also, Fireball and the like already say "every creature in the area takes [the indicated amount of damage]". It only allows a save for half. If you save, then you take half. That's the only exceptions the spell allows. You are demanding more absolute statements than Thicket of Blades has -- because Thicket of Blades just has one..."any". Much the same as Fireball has "every creature".

For some reason with Thicket this means that nothing can modify or resist it, even though Thicket doesn't say this. Yet with Fireball it doesn't mean that. I haven't really heard a good reason for this distinction.

So I disagree, "every creature in the area takes damage, even those with fire resistance 5 or 10" is the same as Thicket of Blades. You are then taking a specific exception and applying it to everything without just cause.

Kinda of curious why no one goes over the Dominate example.

No, it says it bypasses any movement and gives a specific example. The problem is that parsing "any form of movement, including a five foot step" as "a five foot step" doesn't make sense. Language matters. Wording matters. Saying that it's kind of close to the original definition isn't good enough because it's explicit worded differently and we can't simply disregard the distinction because we feel like it. Attacks of Opportunity explicitly say that it only effects certain types of movement and Thicket in turn explicitly says it effects any movement.

Not true at all. Nowhere does it say it generally bypasses AoO movement protections. It says...

"Any movement in your threatened area provokes..."

This is already true for everyone.

"...even 5-foot steps"

One exception.

It then lists Withdrawal as another exception.

It never says "even if a movement would normally not provoke, it still provokes" or anything like that. There's an exception only for two cases.

RAI? It probably isn't supposed to give you extra damage on bull rushes or let you take a swipe at people using nonstandard movement. But the RAW is pretty explicit.

RAI is completely unclear.

I think the problem that Drachasor is having with this argument is that thicket of blades doesn't say this. It doesn't say, "Movement always provokes, including creatures that are immune to AoO's." It just says, "Movement always provokes, including in these cases."

Just so. I don't see why Thicket gets a free pass to trample over AoO avoidance when everything else in the game with similar wording doesn't get that same treatment.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-26, 01:51 PM

Not true at all. Nowhere does it say it generally bypasses AoO movement protections. It says...

"Any movement in your threatened area provokes..."

This is already true for everyone.

"...even 5-foot steps"

One exception.

It then lists Withdrawal as another exception.

It never says "even if a movement would normally not provoke, it still provokes" or anything like that. There's an exception only for two cases.

Just so. I don't see why Thicket gets a free pass to trample over AoO avoidance when everything else in the game with similar wording doesn't get that same treatment.

I agree completely with these statements. Well said Drachasor.

kirerellim

2014-02-26, 02:27 PM

You all know there is never going to be a conclusion to this unless wizards of the coast gives a statement for 3.5 lol

Icewraith

2014-02-26, 03:05 PM

That's not really a valid comparison. Thicket of Blades says "any movement...provokes." It doesn't say "any movement always provokes."

You are also making a conflation there since Resistance->Immunity is pretty much a graduated scale. There's no such graduated scale for Attacks of Opportunity. Just curious, are you saying that in your example Evasion and Incorporeality do nothing?

Also, Fireball and the like already say "every creature in the area takes [the indicated amount of damage]". It only allows a save for half. If you save, then you take half. That's the only exceptions the spell allows. You are demanding more absolute statements than Thicket of Blades has -- because Thicket of Blades just has one..."any". Much the same as Fireball has "every creature".

For some reason with Thicket this means that nothing can modify or resist it, even though Thicket doesn't say this. Yet with Fireball it doesn't mean that. I haven't really heard a good reason for this distinction.

So I disagree, "every creature in the area takes damage, even those with fire resistance 5 or 10" is the same as Thicket of Blades. You are then taking a specific exception and applying it to everything without just cause.

Kinda of curious why no one goes over the Dominate example.

Not true at all. Nowhere does it say it generally bypasses AoO movement protections. It says...

"Any movement in your threatened area provokes..."

This is already true for everyone.

"...even 5-foot steps"

One exception.

It then lists Withdrawal as another exception.

It never says "even if a movement would normally not provoke, it still provokes" or anything like that. There's an exception only for two cases.

RAI is completely unclear.

Just so. I don't see why Thicket gets a free pass to trample over AoO avoidance when everything else in the game with similar wording doesn't get that same treatment.

Ah, but since that wording is already elsewhere in the game why is it there in the stance mechanics if it doesn't do anything?

Thicket does three things compared to the normal AoO rules.

1: States that "any movement in your threatened area provokes". The baseline AoO rule states "moving out of a threatened square usually provokes".

2: 5-foot steps provoke.

3. The withdraw action doesn't modify your threatened area.

Points two and three address the second sentance in the AoO rules, " There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action."

Now here's the relevant part of the Tumble rules (the rest is just DC setting) "Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally."

You roll Tumble to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity normally.

Thicket of Blades does not use the normal attack of opportunity rules.
Thicket of Blades states that any movement provokes- this is already far stronger and in addition to "leaving a threatened square usually provokes".
Tumbling is done as a part of normal movement.

Thicket of blades is more specific than Tumble. Any movement provokes.

I argue that for Tumble to bypass Thicket of Blades, Thicket of Blades would have to specifically allow, not disallow, Tumble.

Drachasor

2014-02-26, 03:09 PM

Ah, but since that wording is already elsewhere in the game why is it there in the stance mechanics if it doesn't do anything?

There are lots of abilities in the game like that. Stop acting like it is novel or means something special. It doesn't.

Thicket of Blades does not use the normal attack of opportunity rules.
Thicket of Blades states that any movement provokes- this is already far stronger and in addition to "leaving a threatened square usually provokes".

It's a mere rewarding of the rules.

If the AoO rules said "Any movement out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity." Then nothing in the game would change at all. A rule doesn't have to list its exceptions. It only does that as a courtesy to the reader. The exceptions list the exceptions.

This is how the entire game structure works. You don't seem to understand how rules interact with each other, and so are giving Thicket special treatment that you would not give any other ability.

Segev

2014-02-26, 03:12 PM

Thicket says all movement provokes. Tumble says that, if you do it while moving, you turn off that movement's provocation.

There's no conflict; Thicket just increases the number of circumstances wherein Tumble is needed.

eggynack

2014-02-26, 03:20 PM

broodax

2014-02-26, 03:21 PM

"Any movement in your threatened area provokes..."

This is already true for everyone.

This, I think we can all agree, is entirely false. This is not already true for anyone that succeeds on a tumble check.

Drachasor

2014-02-26, 03:27 PM

I've been thinking of a potential solution to the fireball problem. What if fireball actually does deal fire damage to fire immune enemies in its radius? The spell does say that it does, so logically that must happen. However, under fire immunity, it says, " A creature with fire immunity never takes fire damage." Thus, I posit that there is some meaningful difference between being dealt damage, and actually taking that damage.

If that's the case, then there is no contradiction between fireball saying that all creatures are dealt damage, and fire immunity saying that the creature in question does not take damage. By contrast, I don't think there's any such separation of terms between thicket of blades and tumble, as they both talk about provoking or not provoking AoO's. As a result, there would be a contradiction between the two abilities that is not created by fireball and fire immunity. I'm not yet sure if there's enough rules support for my hypothesis, but it seems feasible.

Then we can use Wall of Fire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfFire.htm) if you want.

If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall.

Does a Lyre of Building not protect buildings from Earthquakes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/earthquake.htm)?

Any structure standing on open ground takes 100 points of damage

Does Fire Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireShield.htm) deal fire damage to fire immunes then?

Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +15). This damage is either cold damage (if the shield protects against fire-based attacks) or fire damage (if the shield protects against cold-based attacks).

The game doesn't seem to distinguish any difference between dealing damage and the enemy taking damage. Specific protections trump general effects though.

This, I think we can all agree, is entirely false. This is not already true for anyone that succeeds on a tumble check.

No, it is true for everyone.

If you succeed on a tumble check then that makes an exception to the rule.

If you make a 5-foot step, then that's an exception to the rule.

If the movement was from a Bull Rush then that's an exception to the rule.

Again, this is how the rules work. You can have a very general "it is like this for everyone/always" clause. Then a specific ability can say "not this time." Tumble says "not this time". And it works on Thicket just as well as for standard AoOs, because Thicket only singles out Withdrawing and 5-foot steps as things it says "this time you don't get to say 'not this time'" to.

So yeah, in a practical sense, Tumble means it isn't REALLY like that for everyone. There are a ton of other things like that to. However as far as RAW is concerned, the wording doesn't make a difference. Again, there's no need for a rule or ability to spell out every single bloody exception that exists to it. Because that's stupid AND insane. The exceptions spell out the exceptions.

eggynack

2014-02-26, 03:35 PM

Fair enough then, I suppose.

Icewraith

2014-02-26, 03:41 PM

There are lots of abilities in the game like that. Stop acting like it is novel or means something special. It doesn't.

Edit: Hang on, your'e probably being reasonable in your post edit.

broodax

2014-02-26, 03:46 PM

georgie_leech

2014-02-26, 03:53 PM

Segev

2014-02-26, 03:55 PM

So, may I ask, if one were to make an ability that did what ToB does, but for any movement... (and by that I actually mean any movement, not just... whatever the definition of "any" is in the context of the current rule), how should the ability be written?

"You may make an attack of opportunity against anybody who leaves one of your threatened squares for any reason, regardless of whether their movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity. Not even Tumble or other mechanics which normally permit one to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity while exiting a threatened square will prevent those who leave your threatened squares from provoking an attack of opportunity."

Some additional boilerplate about this not giving you more AoOs than you normally get in a round may also be required.

Killer Angel

2014-02-26, 03:56 PM

TypoNinja

2014-02-26, 04:13 PM

While I do think tumble doesn't save you from Thicket because of Specific Vs General, and Primary sources don't really help since PHB is primary for skills, but ToB would be Primary for Stances, I did come up with a possible resolution in the RAW failures thread that doesn't rely on these points. I thought it appropriate to reshare it here.

Basically it sums up as not mattering, tumble isn't applicable in the sutiation to begin with (If you buy my logic at least).

The Language of Thicket states

Your foes provoke this attack before leaving the area you threaten

And movement based AoO rules state

Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent

These two passages establish an order of actions, Movement based AoO's (that tumble would let you escape) are provoked upon exiting a threatened square, Thickets AoO happens before the exiting of a threatened square. Therefor Thicket's AoO happens before the Standard movement based AoO's' would happen.

Similar to Robilar's Gambit, Thicket is establishing new Provoking conditions rather than modifying an exiting one.

If its a new, different triggering condition, the potential conflict with Tumble rules go away, since thicket's AoO is not related to conditions that Tumble addresses.

Icewraith

2014-02-26, 04:17 PM

So, when a certain rule is written long after another, and is for a specific ability, and clearly provides exceptions to existing rules, it is very easy to read it as an exception, on the whole.

I think this is why those that think ToB should apply as an exception to "any" movement that does not normally provoke attacks of opportunity.

But, it appears the argument against is that ToB, if it is spelling out exceptions, must explicitly list every existing rule to which it is an exception? That seems somewhat silly, because you want to make it compatible with abilities and rules that haven't been written yet. So, may I ask, if one were to make an ability that did what ToB does, but for any movement... (and by that I actually mean any movement, not just... whatever the definition of "any" is in the context of the current rule), how should the ability be written?

I think that's where I've been going. Furthermore, 5-foot steps are called out because they're not "normal movement" they're five-foot steps. The withdraw action is called out because it normally changes your threatened area, not because of anything having to do with movement-that movement would already provoke if it didn't remove the starting square from the threatened area.

"Any movement provokes an AoO" IS an exception to anything that says "when you move normally, you don't provoke" when you have it as a specific ability in addition to the normal "moving usually provokes" rules everyone has. Especially when you have to burn character resources on it.

With the fire immunity thing I think a feat like this might attain the same sort of effect:

"Any time you deal fire damage to an opponent, that opponent takes the damage."

The general case for any opponent is that they take damage when they are dealt fire damage. The general case for any monster with fire immunity is that they ignore the damage when they are dealt fire damage. The general case for anyone tumbling is that they do not provoke AoOs. If you have that specific ability in addition to the normal rules though, it should override fire immunity/cause an AoO. If you were listing exceptions to that ability you'd have to state "creatures with fire immunity still ignore the damage" or similar.

When you're writing a splatbook in late 3.5, it may have made sense to try writing abilities this way instead of listing all of the exceptions or possible exceptions to the normal AoO rules.

edit:
@typoninja
That doesn't work because AoOs key off the action you take based on the square you're in at the time. You can't move in an opponent's threatened area and provoke an AoO unless you're already there.

Segev

2014-02-26, 04:18 PM

Icewraith

2014-02-26, 04:25 PM

Interesting theory, except that I think Thicket's specification is a restatement, not an override or a change. It is spelling out that, no, they don't get to say "okay, so I provoked, but I'm out of reach before you actually make the AoO."

That said, it's interesting and bears some further examination to see if it holds more water than I think it does.

That can't happen anyway because the AoO is immediately resolved when provoked. And if it's intended to be a restatement, it's actually a change anyways since the language is much stronger ("any").

Edit:
"any opponent that takes any sort of movment" is pretty damn inclusive I'd say. Thicket (according to dndtools) uses this exact language, which it could be argued covers normal aoo exceptions.

Arguing that it also creates a second triggering condition (leaving your threatened area in addition to any threatened square) would provide an aoo even if the tumble rules blocked the rest of Thicket.

broodax

2014-02-26, 05:11 PM

Probably something like "Anytime a creature voluntarily moves from a threatened square, they provoke an AoO as in the Moving portion of the AoO section. This AoO replaces the one normally granted by moving out of a square (side note: as long as we're clarifying wording, I wanted to say that this is the only AoO you get, it doesn't come on top of the normal movement one). There is no way to avoid provoking this AoO, unless the effect specifically says it overcomes this stance."

Ok, so I am gonna take this as the best example as it includes a couple things others suggested.

a) I think that the call-out about whether this is a different kind of AoO than normal movement provoking AoO is important, and I think the current RAW is unclear. There is no way to answer the Combat Reflexes question without significant interpretation.
b) The description of whether this is can be nullified by general rules is also important.

b) I think is actually the most important call-out. The whole General vs. Specific debate is horrible in 3.5, as the designers put this giant overarching rule in place, and then almost never give the information necessary to apply it. So it would be great if they did this.

Now, though, because we know the designers are terrible, I'm sure they will write an ability in the future that says, "this allows you to avoid all AoO that would normally be provoked by any type of movement. Even abilities that normally grant extra attacks of opportunity or circumvent prevention of AoO do not work against you unless they specifically grant an exception to [this ability]"

If that inevitability does occur then, you're left with two conflicting abilities, both claiming to be more specific than the other. What do you do then?

Of course, the reason I ask, is that it puts us back exactly where we are now. All of that language about applying all the time against everything doesn't actually change anything. The ability already has the word "any" in it. The only important question is "which of these: tumble or ToB, is more specific and grants an exception to the other?" And without perfectly consistent authors, we are never going to learn that.

Segev

2014-02-26, 05:16 PM

D&D doesn't have this, but in Exalted 2e, they had "UF/IO." It was shorthand for a section of the core rules that was headed, "Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object."

This section can be boiled down to declaring that, if ever there is an Unstoppable Force attempting to batter down an Immovable Object, the Immovable Object wins. This has been treated as sacrosanct to the point that rules which tried to override it were pointed out to actually do nothing precisely because they still brought an unstoppable force against an immovable object, so the immovable object still won.

For game rule purposes, an "unstoppable force" is an "attack," and an "immovable object" is a "defense." Generally speaking, it relied on the obviousness of the English meanings of these words. The final rule in this was that, if it was impossible to determine which was the attack and which the defense, then such was to be resolved with (effectively) a coin flip. (Actually, it often came to opposed Essence rolls, which is kind of like saying "roll a d20 and add your ECL; the higher result wins," but that only worked if there were two characters/creatures opposing. IF it was against something non-creature, it really did come down to a coin flip...or rule of cool.)

georgie_leech

2014-02-26, 05:26 PM

Ok, so I am gonna take this as the best example as it includes a couple things others suggested.

a) I think that the call-out about whether this is a different kind of AoO than normal movement provoking AoO is important, and I think the current RAW is unclear. There is no way to answer the Combat Reflexes question without significant interpretation.
b) The description of whether this is can be nullified by general rules is also important.

b) I think is actually the most important call-out. The whole General vs. Specific debate is horrible in 3.5, as the designers put this giant overarching rule in place, and then almost never give the information necessary to apply it. So it would be great if they did this.

Now, though, because we know the designers are terrible, I'm sure they will write an ability in the future that says, "this allows you to avoid all AoO that would normally be provoked by any type of movement. Even abilities that normally grant extra attacks of opportunity or circumvent prevention of AoO do not work against you unless they specifically grant an exception to [this ability]"

If that inevitability does occur then, you're left with two conflicting abilities, both claiming to be more specific than the other. What do you do then?

Of course, the reason I ask, is that it puts us back exactly where we are now. All of that language about applying all the time against everything doesn't actually change anything. The ability already has the word "any" in it. The only important question is "which of these: tumble or ToB, is more specific and grants an exception to the other?" And without perfectly consistent authors, we are never going to learn that.

Sweet, I'm number 1! :smallbiggrin:

In the event of such an interaction, you can really do one of two things to resolve it. You can either errata the first ability such that it is called out as overcoming the second, or vice versa. Otherwise it's up to DM interpretation. One of the pitfalls of such specific language is that it can be difficult to remember all the abilities that something is supposed to overwrite, but it's important to address it if something is left out. Alas, like you said, in this circumstance we're unlikely to ever get a solid RAW answer; best answer is "Ask your DM."

squiggit

2014-02-26, 06:48 PM

My problem with this is essentially twofold

*"Any movement, including 5-foot steps" seems like an extremely roundabout way to say "five foot step". So much so that I don't buy it's simply poor writing. Yes that's a mainstay of ToB but "including" meaning "limited to only one thing" is just too weird of a language choice for me to buy right now.
**I disagree that it's simply a restating of the standard AoO rules because it uses very explictly different wording (AoO says that movement "usually" provokes and lists cases in which it works or does not work. Thicket says "any form of movement" provokes and leaves it at that)

I don't remember the second reason right now but it was probably really profound and would blow everyone away. For sure.

For the record I don't actually believe Thicket beats Tumble because of the way tumble works (insofar as that it's a skillcheck that modifies movement and not movement itself).

Icewraith

2014-02-26, 07:23 PM

nyjastul69

2014-02-26, 10:31 PM

Ok, so I am gonna take this as the best example as it includes a couple things others suggested.

a) I think that the call-out about whether this is a different kind of AoO than normal movement provoking AoO is important, and I think the current RAW is unclear. There is no way to answer the Combat Reflexes question without significant interpretation.
b) The description of whether this is can be nullified by general rules is also important.

b) I think is actually the most important call-out. The whole General vs. Specific debate is horrible in 3.5, as the designers put this giant overarching rule in place, and then almost never give the information necessary to apply it. So it would be great if they did this.

Now, though, because we know the designers are terrible, I'm sure they will write an ability in the future that says, "this allows you to avoid all AoO that would normally be provoked by any type of movement. Even abilities that normally grant extra attacks of opportunity or circumvent prevention of AoO do not work against you unless they specifically grant an exception to [this ability]"

If that inevitability does occur then, you're left with two conflicting abilities, both claiming to be more specific than the other. What do you do then?

Of course, the reason I ask, is that it puts us back exactly where we are now. All of that language about applying all the time against everything doesn't actually change anything. The ability already has the word "any" in it. The only important question is "which of these: tumble or ToB, is more specific and grants an exception to the other?" And without perfectly consistent authors, we are never going to learn that.

In regards to your 2nd b point: many games are exception based. The general rules are played out and modified by exceptions. This is not original or unique to D&D. Exception based rulesets are quite common across all types of games. When the designers point this out they are just being Captain Obvious.

georgie_leech

2014-02-26, 10:37 PM

In regards to your 2nd b point: many games are exception based. The general rules are played out and modified by exceptions. This is not original or unique to D&D. Exception based rulesets are quite common across all types of games. When the designers point this out they are just being Captain Obvious.

I find it useful in design to point out specifically where things break down or what overwrites what just to avoid situations like this one, where the designers (presumably) felt something was obvious, but it turns out to have not been obvious at all. Or rather, it's obvious in both directions to different people.

Drachasor

2014-02-27, 03:56 AM

Something similar to "While you're in this stance, any movement in your threatened area provokes AoO from you, including all the movements that usually don't provoke AoO"

edit: you all type quickly, do you?

And it would need the Withdrawal section still there, since Withdrawal removes a threatened square.

But yeah, a blanket statement like that would work fine.

Similar to Robilar's Gambit, Thicket is establishing new Provoking conditions rather than modifying an exiting one.

This thinking really doesn't make any sense, imho. The "new condition" is exactly the same as the old one. Movement out of a threatened square provokes, and you make the attack before they leave the square. That's just how the normal rules work. The only thing it does is make it so 5-foot steps and Withdrawal don't work.

But if you really think it is a different triggering condition, then please explain how it is different -- barring the 2 explicit exceptions it has. Show me where it makes a difference in the game in the order of events or anything else. Because the same action triggers it, and the attack happens the exact same way as normal AoOs based on movement, as far as I see.

I think that's where I've been going. Furthermore, 5-foot steps are called out because they're not "normal movement" they're five-foot steps. The withdraw action is called out because it normally changes your threatened area, not because of anything having to do with movement-that movement would already provoke if it didn't remove the starting square from the threatened area.

I'd like someone to now quote the rules that say 5-foot step isn't movement. And a definition of "normal movement" combined with where Thicket only states or suggests it works on normal movement. Because I keep hearing that 5-foot steps HAD to be explicitly called out, but I see no justification for this. Killer Angel's text above would make Thicket apply to 5-foot steps without calling them out explicitly.

With the fire immunity thing I think a feat like this might attain the same sort of effect:

"Any time you deal fire damage to an opponent, that opponent takes the damage."

This is already how all fire spells that deal fire damage work. The game doesn't distinguish between "dealing" and "taking" damage.

It's stronger than that. It's "Any opponent that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step"

That doesn't mean anything different than "If an opponent in your threatened are makes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step" Again, it includes no other exceptions.

Again, this is like an Area Dominate spell saying "Any opponent in the area is affect by Dominate Monster, even if they have Protection from Evil or Spell Immunity." That does not imply ignores anything other than two forms of protections. It still doesn't affect Undead, Constructs, Mind Blanked people, etc.

My problem with this is essentially twofold

*"Any movement, including 5-foot steps" seems like an extremely roundabout way to say "five foot step". So much so that I don't buy it's simply poor writing. Yes that's a mainstay of ToB but "including" meaning "limited to only one thing" is just too weird of a language choice for me to buy right now.
**I disagree that it's simply a restating of the standard AoO rules because it uses very explictly different wording (AoO says that movement "usually" provokes and lists cases in which it works or does not work. Thicket says "any form of movement" provokes and leaves it at that)

(1) A rule that could be written better isn't a justification for deciding it says something that it doesn't say.
(2) If you disagree, then state how it works different. Again, this is like saying Fireball ignore incorporeality (or Wall of Fire or any of the other spells I listed). Or it is like my example of a Area Dominate ignores all protections rather than just two, just because it affects "everyone in the area".

And again, if the AoO rules in the SRD said
"Any enemy that makes any sort of movement out of one of your threatened squares provokes an attack of opportunity." Then the rules would work EXACTLY how they do now.

A rule does not have to list every exception to it in the game. That's insane to suggest. It doesn't even have to say that there ARE exceptions -- see Fireball. The rules for the exceptions are the only place where rules for exceptions need to be.

The PHB/SRD is merely doing a courtesy to the reader by informing them that exceptions exist. It does not have to do that. There are plenty of rules that don't (again, see Fireball).

Icewraith

2014-02-27, 12:47 PM

Why thicket must explicitly call out 5-foot steps (both from SRD):

Definition of 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

5-foot step:

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance.

Not only does 5-foot step state "no AoO" in some of the strongest language possible (never), it's also in its own action category separate from move actions (probably to reduce the number of uses of the term "move").

It's important to note that nowhere in the AoO or movement section is there any reference to the Tumble skill, but Tumbling is "part of normal movement" and "part of a move action".

What it comes down to is this- does the change from "moving out of a threatened square usually provokes" to "Any opponent that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step, provokes" include opponents using Tumble?

Keeping in mind that Thicket isn't actually a change to the normal rules but a specific ability posessed by a character that is an exception?

(general)
Core rules: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes.

(specific)
Tumble skill, core rules, usable by anyone with a rank in Tumble: Moving half your speed does not provoke if you make a dc 15 tumble check. Moving full speed foes not provoke if you make a dc 25 tumble check.

(More specific)
Thicket, late 3.5 splatbook, only usable by Crusaders, masters of nine, or characters that take the martial stance feat: Any opponent that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step provokes.

And again, if the AoO rules in the SRD said
"Any enemy that makes any sort of movement out of one of your threatened squares provokes an attack of opportunity." Then the rules would work EXACTLY how they do now.

No, the AoO rules prior to the introduction of Tome of Battle would work exactly as they did with the original language in the SRD, assuming the Tumble skill description remained unchanged. We can't know what Thicket of Blades would have looked like if the AoO rules already used that language either.

If things were like that, you'd be correct. Unfortunately you seem to have ended up in the wrong reality. What really sucks for you is that our local physics, current technology level, and apparent lack of magic are such you'd have a better chance escaping from Ravenloft than here (and this universe is becoming far more Orwellian than I'm comfortable with).

mangosta71

2014-02-27, 03:07 PM

(More specific)
Thicket, late 3.5 splatbook, only usable by Crusaders, masters of nine, or characters that take the martial stance feat: Any opponent that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step provokes.
It's even more specific than that, because the character has to be in that particular stance at the time. And before that even becomes possible, he has to qualify to learn it in the first place. As a level 3 stance, it requires an initiator level of at least 5. A non-ToB character therefore has to be at least level 10. A ToB character can access it via feat at level 5, but a crusader won't learn a new stance that can be used for a third-level until 8 (he could theoretically get it at warblade 3/crusader 2 or swordsage 3/crusader 2). A warblade or swordsage has to spend two feats to get it - one for the maneuver he must know to qualify to learn it and then another for the stance itself. Also note that, without spending a feat, a crusader will only ever know 4 stances.

Compare this investment to that required for the (flat) tumble check. By level 5 a character will have 8 ranks, plus 2 for synergy from jump, plus at least 3 for the dex modifier, meaning he has to roll a 2 to make the check (or he autosucceeds with a higher Dex score).

The relative investments required for the two give a pretty strong indication (to me, at least) which one should trump the other, regardless of semantic nitpicking.

Killer Angel

2014-02-27, 03:25 PM

But yeah, a blanket statement like that would work fine.

I find that simplify is better. You're less subject to nitpicking. :smallwink:

Segev

2014-02-27, 03:29 PM

Keeping in mind that Thicket isn't actually a change to the normal rules but a specific ability posessed by a character that is an exception?

(general)
Core rules: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes.

(specific)
Tumble skill, core rules, usable by anyone with a rank in Tumble: Moving half your speed does not provoke if you make a dc 15 tumble check. Moving full speed foes not provoke if you make a dc 25 tumble check.

(More specific)
Thicket, late 3.5 splatbook, only usable by Crusaders, masters of nine, or characters that take the martial stance feat: Any opponent that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step provokes.

Thicket is not "more specific" than Tumble. The two don't quite interact as you describe.

(specific)
Thicket, late 3.5 splatbook: Any opponent that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step provokes.

(specific)
Tumble skill, core rules, usable by anyone with a rank in Tumble: If your movement would otherwise provoke an AoO, you may make a Tumble check to not provoke that AoO. The DC is 15 if your movement is equal to or less than half your normal movement speed; it is 25 otherwise.

The interaction between them is thus: Under normal circumstances, you provoke an AoO only with certain kinds of movement, and a five-foot-step is specifically not such a sort of movement. You roll Tumble when you use those sorts of movement which do provoke in order to not provoke after all. When moving near somebody with Thicket of Blades, you provoke an AoO with any sort of movement. You now roll Tumble for any sort of movement in order to avoid having that movement provoke an AoO.

If you think of it like this was a programmed computer game, the way it interacts is that certain things provoke an AoO. This is a flag within the classes of movement that is either on or off. Normally, the five foot step and a laundry list of other kinds of movement have that flag "off," while other kinds of movement have it "on." Whenever that flag is "on," people with Tumble can invoke it, not to turn off the flag, but to simply say that the flag is irrelevant: no provocation this time.

Thicket of Blades turns that flag on for every kind of movement. Tumble still can be invoked to say that the flag is irrelevant.

To put it still another way, it's an order of operations thing. First, you check to see if your movement provokes an AoO. If it does, you check to see if you can perform Tumble successfully. If you cannot, then the person whose AoO you provoked may choose to attack you opportunistically. If your movement does not provoke an AoO, or you succeed on the Tumble check, you do not provoke the AoO.

Thicket of Blades inserts itself in the first step of this: it says that all kinds of movement provoke an AoO. It does not change that, upon determining that your movement type provokes an AoO, you now may check to see if you can successfully Tumble to avoid provoking that AoO.

broodax

2014-02-27, 03:55 PM

To put it still another way, it's an order of operations thing. First, you check to see if your movement provokes an AoO. If it does, you check to see if you can perform Tumble successfully. If you cannot, then the person whose AoO you provoked may choose to attack you opportunistically. If your movement does not provoke an AoO, or you succeed on the Tumble check, you do not provoke the AoO.

Thicket of Blades inserts itself in the first step of this: it says that all kinds of movement provoke an AoO. It does not change that, upon determining that your movement type provokes an AoO, you now may check to see if you can successfully Tumble to avoid provoking that AoO.

You are stating this as if it is fact, entirely begging the question. The entire argument is about which is more specific, and in which order they are applied/considered. Simply stating that one is more specific does nothing to support your claim, because that is exactly the thing you would need to prove.

The rules just don't appear to give any way to determine which should apply "last", it's entirely up to interpretation.

Segev

2014-02-27, 04:26 PM

You are stating this as if it is fact, entirely begging the question. The entire argument is about which is more specific, and in which order they are applied/considered. Simply stating that one is more specific does nothing to support your claim, because that is exactly the thing you would need to prove.Er, my premise is based on the fact that the relative specificity is impossible to determine, and is moreover irrelevant to resolving the apparent conflict.

The rules just don't appear to give any way to determine which should apply "last", it's entirely up to interpretation.

I disagree. Thicket of Blades specifies that it causes movement that might otherwise not provoke an AoO to instead provoke an AoO.

Tumble's anti-AoO clauses only activate if your movement would provoke an AoO. Therefore, until Thicket of Blades makes it so that, for example, your five foot step provokes an AoO, Tumble is not applied at all, because no AoO is provoked by a five foot step under normal circumstances.

Therefore, Tumble inherently is applied after Thicket of Blades is applied. Tumble then says, "if you succeed on this check, you do not provoke the AoO you otherwise would."

mangosta71

2014-02-27, 04:57 PM

Or, given that you would provoke anyway even without Thicket's interference, Tumble applies, and then Thicket applies. Any "order of operations" is completely arbitrary.

broodax

2014-02-27, 05:18 PM

TypoNinja

2014-02-27, 05:46 PM

You appear to be confused. If you are withdrawing, tumble doesn't apply, it is done as part of "normal" movement. If you are 5' stepping, tumble doesn't apply, it is done as part of normal movement.

If you are tumbling (successfully), as part of normal movement, then you do not provoke an attack of opportunity. But! Then ToB applies, because you took "any" movement, so you do provoke an attack of opportunity!

See how you can just arbitrarily decide which should apply last?

Actually Rules Compendium, does give you the order you are supposed to apply them in. Page 5. Order of Rules Application.

General to Specific to Exception.

There seems to simply be the dispute over which of Tumble or Thicket is the Exception and which is the Specific.

I think thicket runs last, as its a more narrowly applied subset of rules than Tumble, which in turn modifies the General AoO rules.

Icewraith

2014-02-27, 05:49 PM

Thicket is not "more specific" than Tumble. The two don't quite interact as you describe.

(specific)
Thicket, late 3.5 splatbook: Any opponent that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step provokes.

(specific)
Tumble skill, core rules, usable by anyone with a rank in Tumble: If your movement would otherwise provoke an AoO, you may make a Tumble check to not provoke that AoO. The DC is 15 if your movement is equal to or less than half your normal movement speed; it is 25 otherwise.

The interaction between them is thus: Under normal circumstances, you provoke an AoO only with certain kinds of movement, and a five-foot-step is specifically not such a sort of movement. You roll Tumble when you use those sorts of movement which do provoke in order to not provoke after all. When moving near somebody with Thicket of Blades, you provoke an AoO with any sort of movement. You now roll Tumble for any sort of movement in order to avoid having that movement provoke an AoO.

If you think of it like this was a programmed computer game, the way it interacts is that certain things provoke an AoO. This is a flag within the classes of movement that is either on or off. Normally, the five foot step and a laundry list of other kinds of movement have that flag "off," while other kinds of movement have it "on." Whenever that flag is "on," people with Tumble can invoke it, not to turn off the flag, but to simply say that the flag is irrelevant: no provocation this time.

Thicket of Blades turns that flag on for every kind of movement. Tumble still can be invoked to say that the flag is irrelevant.

To put it still another way, it's an order of operations thing. First, you check to see if your movement provokes an AoO. If it does, you check to see if you can perform Tumble successfully. If you cannot, then the person whose AoO you provoked may choose to attack you opportunistically. If your movement does not provoke an AoO, or you succeed on the Tumble check, you do not provoke the AoO.

Thicket of Blades inserts itself in the first step of this: it says that all kinds of movement provoke an AoO. It does not change that, upon determining that your movement type provokes an AoO, you now may check to see if you can successfully Tumble to avoid provoking that AoO.

Depending on how you program this, Thicket simply pings on any movement and ignores the no AoO flag. Any movement from any opponent- which should include super special movement normally not subject to normal AoO in the core rules, and five foot steps since they're a different kind of movement- provokes an AoO from the person with thicket. Movement modified by tumble falls within the set of "any movement from any opponent including five foot steps" and would not include movement modified by Tumble only if specifically stated.

Player: "I tumble past the guy with the spiked chain"
DM: "Alright, roll tumble"
*Rolls over a 15 total*
DM: "Usually, you'd succeed. However he's got a new ability out of that splat I bought, which grants him an AoO from any movement from any opponent, including five foot steps."
Player: "****. Wait, tumbling ignores AoOs, that's the point!"
DM: "This goes off ANY movement and it's a specific ability the guy has. It even beats five foot steps and those never provoke. You can't even poke a hole in his threatened area using withdraw."
Player:"It doesn't specifically mention tumbling?"
DM: "No but neither does anything else in the AoO or movement section, and tumbling is still movement."
Player:"Why'd you let me roll?"
DM: "You said you were tumbling, if you say you're using a skill you can roll your skill. Also it still affects how far you can move, and not everyone is going to have this ability. If there were other guys here you would still not provoke from them. You can roll search all you like too but it won't matter if there's nothing to find."
Player: "But it's movement that by definition does not provoke!"
DM:"Normally yes. This guy isn't normal- you can't just pick this thing up out of the blue, he's trained for it. You move at all, he AoOs. That's the whole point of the ability."
Player:"Does not provoke."
DM:"Any movement."

And then we get this thread. My version is obviously biased towards my interpretation but you could just as easily flip it around where the player is frustrated that the DM's monsters are still tumbling past his spiked chain guy even though he's got this cool new ability. The DM would be arguing that tumble doesn't provoke and the player would argue he's got a new special ability that works on any movement from any opponent.

So I agree it's an order of operations thing. But, Tumble does not read "if your movement would provoke an AoO roll tumble to not provoke" it reads "Tumble at [half/full speed based on DC] as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so." If it read the way you rephrased it you would almost certainly be correct. Tumble is not an if AoO-then avoid or negate statement. Tumbling is a form of movement that does not provoke attacks of opportunity (it even works on stuff you don't know is there!). You can tumble as a form of movment even if nothing is around at all. You can tumble anywhere, as long as you have a listed speed for the movement mode!

But it is movement, and accessible to every character at first level (as long as you don't mind spending cross-class skill ranks). Thicket only works for 5th level characters and higher with the limitations discussed previously, and it only works within the threatened areas of the character with thicket of blades while they are in that stance. So when Thicket states that it works on any movement from any opponent, and Tumble is movement, Thicket wins.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-27, 06:12 PM

You appear to be confused. If you are withdrawing, tumble doesn't apply, it is done as part of "normal" movement. If you are 5' stepping, tumble doesn't apply, it is done as part of normal movement.
I would say you appear to be confused. "Normal" movement is any motive form for which you have a listed speed. If you have a land speed and you're moving across land, that's normal movement for you. If you are climbing and don't have a Climb speed, that's not normal movement for you.

Specific references include Tiger Claw Sudden Leap maneuver (Tome of Battle, page 89):
As with any movement, you can attempt a Tumble check to avoid any attacks you provoke with this sudden leap. and Rules Compendium, page 27:
Tumbling during a Charge
You can tumble during a charge, as long as you continue to meet all other criteria for making a charge before, during, and after tumbling.

Mikeavelli

2014-02-27, 07:41 PM

Why has this gone on for 7 pages?

But yeah, a blanket statement like that would work fine.

While you are in this stance, any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement, including a 5-foot step, provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

the clause even does not negate or lessen any sort of movement in any way. The blanket statement you would accept has been there from the start.

Basically, is tumble a sort of movement? You're moving aren't you? Then it provokes an AoO from ThoB. There isn't any wiggle room here.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-27, 07:50 PM

Basically, is tumble a sort of movement? You're moving aren't you?
To answer the bolded part: no.

The D&D authors have defined what the sorts of movements are here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_movementmodes&alpha=M): they're Land movement (the default) plus Burrow, Climb, Fly, and Swim. (There's also the involuntary movement of falling, which is not a movement mode.) Tumble is a skill, not a movement type. It lets you modify any sort of movement you have a listed speed in, but is not a movement type of its own. You can't Tumble while climbing unless you have a Climb speed.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-02-27, 07:53 PM

Basically, is tumble a sort of movement? You're moving aren't you? Then it provokes an AoO from ThoB.

Actually, tumble isn't "a sort of movement." It's something that's done as part of some sort of movement.
And yes, you provoke using any sort of movement due to ThoB. But, there's just the teensy little problem that tumble exists explicitly to avoid suffering AoOs your movement would have provoked.

There isn't any wiggle room here.

I guess. If you close your eyes, plug your ears, and shout "LALALALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU!" over and over again.

Mikeavelli

2014-02-27, 07:58 PM

To answer the bolded part: no.

The D&D authors have defined what the sorts of movements are here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_movementmodes&alpha=M): they're Land movement (the default) plus Burrow, Climb, Fly, and Swim. (There's also the involuntary movement of falling, which is not a movement mode.) Tumble is a skill, not a movement type. It lets you modify any sort of movement you have a listed speed in, but is not a movement type of its own. You can't Tumble while climbing unless you have a Climb speed.

I'll accept that, and I suppose if you could tumble without actually moving, then it would apply.

But as long as you're moving, ThoB applies. Any sort of movement is not ambiguous.

TypoNinja

2014-02-27, 07:59 PM

Why has this gone on for 7 pages?

the clause even does not negate or lessen any sort of movement in any way. The blanket statement you would accept has been there from the start.

Basically, is tumble a sort of movement? You're moving aren't you? Then it provokes an AoO from ThoB. There isn't any wiggle room here.

This is the basis of the argument, because D&D is an exception based rules system that starts with broad rules modified by exceptions (You provoke for casting a spell, unless you do so defensively. You cannot fly, unless you have a fly speed, you may attack once a round, unless your BAB is higher or you posess more than one natural weapon).

Which one is the basic rule, and which one is the exception modifying it matter because whichever rule gets to go "last" as it were ends up winning.

Mikeavelli

2014-02-27, 08:05 PM

This is the basis of the argument, because D&D is an exception based rules system that starts with broad rules modified by exceptions (You provoke for casting a spell, unless you do so defensively. You cannot fly, unless you have a fly speed, you may attack once a round, unless your BAB is higher or you posess more than one natural weapon).

Which one is the basic rule, and which one is the exception modifying it matter because whichever rule gets to go "last" as it were ends up winning.

the basis for the argument is that, since ThoB doesn't explicitly call out Tumble by name, then Tumble might apply. This pretends that "any sort of movement" either isn't written, or doesn't mean what it says it means. The reason for the inclusion of 5 ft steps and withdraw is to specify that yes, any movement means any movement, which would include tumbling.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-27, 08:11 PM

But as long as you're moving, ThoB applies. Any sort of movement is not ambiguous.
No, it's not ambiguous. Of course, the Tumble statement about using it so your movement doesn't provoke is also unambiguous. These rules simply disagree with each other.

I already explained why WotC's disagreement resolution rule says Tumble wins this dispute, so I'll simply provide a link to that post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17051537&postcount=11).

broodax

2014-02-27, 08:33 PM

I would say you appear to be confused. "Normal" movement is any motive form for which you have a listed speed. If you have a land speed and you're moving across land, that's normal movement for you. If you are climbing and don't have a Climb speed, that's not normal movement for you.

Specific references include Tiger Claw Sudden Leap maneuver (Tome of Battle, page 89): and Rules Compendium, page 27:

You are correct that I used some pretty poor language. My intent was to say that 5' steps and withdrawing were of no use in that specific comparison because you would not be tumbling during them (or during the first square of Withdrawing). Yes, you could, of course, but the discussion of those mechanics would still be pointless.

kirerellim

2014-02-27, 09:00 PM

I'm just curious: Is anyone else watching this just to see how many times different people repeat the same argument?

TuggyNE

2014-02-27, 09:25 PM

I'm just curious: Is anyone else watching this just to see how many times different people repeat the same argument?

I'm skimming to see if anything new comes up.

So far it looks like Tumble manages to win, but I'm not wedded to that reading.

TypoNinja

2014-02-27, 09:30 PM

No, it's not ambiguous. Of course, the Tumble statement about using it so your movement doesn't provoke is also unambiguous. These rules simply disagree with each other.

I already explained why WotC's disagreement resolution rule says Tumble wins this dispute, so I'll simply provide a link to that post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17051537&postcount=11).

I don't buy it, PHB is not the Primary source for "Rules of the game" there is not such a thing. Or if there is it'd be Rules Compendium.

What PHB is Primary source for is Skills, so I'd give you that at least.

But it doesn't help. Since ToB is the Primary source for Stances and their uses.

I'm just curious: Is anyone else watching this just to see how many times different people repeat the same argument?

I'm forgetting what I argued in what thread, so I feel like I've repeated myself already anyway :P

Drachasor

2014-02-27, 09:32 PM

I don't buy it, PHB is not the Primary source for "Rules of the game" there is not such a thing. Or if there is it'd be Rules Compendium.

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® 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

In other words, you are wrong.

Definition of move:

It's not even worth responding to your whole post when your "definition of a move" is NOT a definition at all. It's just an example. And the section going over movement does talk about 5' steps.

You are making a distinction about what movement is that the rules do not make. 5' steps ARE movement, period.

To say nothing of the fact that AoO based on movement are only about moving out of a square and nothing about taking move actions or moving your speed.

I think I'll stop posting in this thread until I'm convinced the people arguing Thicket stops Tumbling actually understand the rules.

Because I've yet to hear anyone give a proper response to the idea that Fireball ignores incorporeal and everything else when dealing fire damage.* Which is what you get when you act like Thicket somehow overrides all AoO avoidance and apply that thinking to everything else in the game.

*And no one has even touched my Dominate Area hypothetical with a 10' pole.

TypoNinja

2014-02-27, 09:36 PM

I think I'll stop posting in this thread until I'm convinced the people arguing Thicket stops Tumbling actually understand the rules.

Except, the Errata line goes right on to start listing topics that the PHB isn't the primary source on, despite giving it the baseline rules authority.

Does Magic Item Creation not count as "rules of the game? Do I stop playing D&D when I design a magic item? Or template a creatures? Have I stopped playing D&D every time I use a Supernatural Ability?

It goes right on to say that the PHB is not the primary source for topics it doesn't cover, like oh, Stances.

Drachasor

2014-02-27, 09:44 PM

Except, the Errata line goes right on to start listing topics that the PHB isn't the primary source on, despite giving it the baseline rules authority.

You said there was no primary source for the "rules of the game." The creators of the game EXPLICITLY disagree with you. The primary source for rules is explicitly stated to be the PHB.

Does Magic Item Creation not count as "rules of the game? Do I stop playing D&D when I design a magic item? Or template a creatures? Have I stopped playing D&D every time I use a Supernatural Ability?

It goes right on to say that the PHB is not the primary source for topics it doesn't cover, like oh, Stances.

Those technically speaking (as described by the creators of the game) rules for playing the game. Those are rules for things like monsters and whatnot. And if a monster rule says something about how the game works in general that disagrees with the PHB, then it is wrong. And the PHB is the primary source for AoO rules, not ToB.

To say nothing of that fact that Thicket never says things that stop AoO don't work against it. If you think otherwise, explain why Fireball which causes "everyone in the area" to take fire damage, doesn't deal damage to Fire Immunes or might not against Incorporeals.

And explain why my Area Dominate hypothetical, which does "Dominate Monster to everyone in the area, even if they are affected by Spell Immunity or Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos" doesn't work on people with Mind Blank or Undead or Constructs.

Again, what you are saying about Thicket makes no sense. So try to address those issues please.

Red Rubber Band

2014-02-27, 10:03 PM

I'm just curious: Is anyone else watching this just to see how many times different people repeat the same argument?

It's really amusing, and annoying, that people bring up the same objections time and again. A response is provided, they quibble over a small part of it and ignore the bigger picture then proceed to repeat themselves. Déjà vu much?

kirerellim

2014-02-27, 10:20 PM

Exactly, though I'm just amused as I already made my decision lol. Still, I had no idea all this would happen when I started the thread.

broodax

2014-02-27, 11:07 PM

No, it's not ambiguous. Of course, the Tumble statement about using it so your movement doesn't provoke is also unambiguous. These rules simply disagree with each other.

I already explained why WotC's disagreement resolution rule says Tumble wins this dispute, so I'll simply provide a link to that post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17051537&postcount=11).

Could you clarify this? Because based on this reasoning, ToB does nothing. It's not just tumble that still doesn't provoke. Anything that doesn't provoke according to the PhB still doesn't, because the PhB says it doesn't and the PhB wins any argument due to Primary Sources.

Arael666

2014-02-27, 11:17 PM

Why do people are refering to tumble as a movement? It's a skill check, much like jump. It's right in the SRD:

Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie). Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.

eggynack

2014-02-27, 11:24 PM

Why do people are refering to thumble as a movement? It's a skill check, much like jump. It'sw right in the SRD:

The tumble isn't movement. The movement that happens while you use tumble is, however, movement. Folks are mostly using tumble as shorthand for, "Movement during which you use tumble to not provoke AoO's," although it gets used in that fashion enough that I wouldn't really even consider it shorthand.

Phelix-Mu

2014-02-28, 01:40 AM

I think about 100 people have probably already said it but my view:

1.) ThoB causes any movement to provoke AoO.

2.) Tumble can be used on any movement to avoid provoking AoO.

Maybe that is oversimplifying my view (it is getting late), but it seems to me that Tumble avoiding AoO is a thing even if there is another thing that says "movement=AoO."

I understand that ThoB probably should have specified regarding Tumble, since Tumble itself is not a form of movement. I think we can chalk much up to ToB not being thoroughly edited or having errata (both of which are unforgivable in my book, but that's another matter). It didn't specify, so it seems to me Tumble wins.

But I see how the community is still pretty much at loggerheads.

Curmudgeon

2014-02-28, 04:07 AM

Could you clarify this? Because based on this reasoning, ToB does nothing. It's not just tumble that still doesn't provoke. Anything that doesn't provoke according to the PhB still doesn't, because the PhB says it doesn't and the PhB wins any argument due to Primary Sources.
The clarification is that supplementary rules are allowed to make exceptions (new rules) to what's stated in the Player's Handbook if they explicitly state how those exceptions work. Pretty much every feat in the game, for instance, is a way of gaining an exception to a part of the regular rules. Thicket of Blades states its exception to the rules: any sort of movement provokes AoOs, including specifically 5' steps and Withdraw actions. But there's already a rule which states that, with a successful Tumble check, no movement provokes AoOs. The Thicket of Blades text states explicit exceptions to the normal rules for 5' step and Withdraw. But the any movement provokes statement fails to address the no movement provokes exception provided by using Tumble successfully.

There's obviously no way for Tumble to take Thicket of Blades into account. The same can't be said the other way around. Thicket of Blades can make exceptions to the normal rules if it states them explicitly; it did so for 5' step and Withdraw. The rest of the statement ("any sort of movement") isn't an explicit exception to Tumble; it's an exception to the normal rules which simply disagrees with Tumble's exception to the normal rules.

When you get to the point where rules just flat out disagree with each other, that's when the Primary Sources Errata Rule resolves the dispute.

broodax

2014-02-28, 08:44 AM

Thicket of Blades can make exceptions to the normal rules if it states them explicitly; it did so for 5' step and Withdraw. The rest of the statement ("any sort of movement") isn't an explicit exception to Tumble; it's an exception to the normal rules which simply disagrees with Tumble's exception to the normal rules.

When you get to the point where rules just flat out disagree with each other, that's when the Primary Sources Errata Rule resolves the dispute.

This is a super nuanced reading of it... but it does seem right. This is what I was getting at earlier, when I asked what a rule would be required to look like in order to actually take tumble into account.

It's hard to articulate this, though. "any sort of movement" is definitely an explicit contradiction. But I suppose one can argue that it's not an explicit exception because it doesn't actually name the rule it contradicts (or is there some other way to become an explicit exception? is even more required?).

albeaver89

2014-02-28, 08:56 AM

The RAW reason for why Tumble "wins" here is the following: Tumble is in Player's Handbook, the primary source for the rules of the game, so that's the correct rule to settle this disagreement.

Basically, the authors of Tome of Battle were idiots to give such scant consideration to the core rules of D&D.

Makes sense to me. I dunno why there are 8 pages of this argument lol

broodax

2014-02-28, 09:21 AM

Makes sense to me. I dunno why there are 8 pages of this argument lol

I don't think was ever really the question - though it's super helpful to have it stated exactly why tumble would win if the rules are in direct contradiction. The side arguing for Tumble has always assumed that there is a contradiction, and therefor Tumble wins. Some alternate reasons have been stated, such as General v. Specific or order of operations.

The side arguing for ToB has implicitly agreed with this, I think, and has not been arguing that it's not true. Rather they have been arguing that ToB provides an exception to the existing rule. We are all agreed, I think, with what Curmudgeon points out above - when there is an explicit exception, the Primary Sources rule doesn't apply. If this were not true we'd never have any new feats, classes, skill uses, etc.

I'm not sure if this investigation of "what is required to make a new rule an exception" is related to Specific v. General or not. It seems at least close in scope and effect to me. The confusion around them is certainly similar in cause, which is that the writers seem to have trouble explicitly stating things.

At any rate, I do think that if you want to convince the ToB advocates now, the way to do that is to define what is needed to make a rule an exception and to contrast that with what ToB does to make it clear that it is not an exception.

Segev

2014-02-28, 09:52 AM

Basically, is tumble a sort of movement? You're moving aren't you? Then it provokes an AoO from ThoB. There isn't any wiggle room here.

Except that Tumble is not a form of movement.

Tumble is a skill which, when you perform any sort of movement which provokes AoO, allows you to roll against a DC set by how much you're moving compared to your movement speed. If you succeed, it negates the AoO you provoke.

Again: Tumble is not a form of movement by the rules. Tumble is something you do as part of normal movement. (Without clarification saying otherwise, this might suggest you cannot Tumble as part of abnormal movement, such as being bull rushed, but that's probably another thread's worth of discussion.)

Segev

2014-02-28, 09:54 AM

Segev

2014-02-28, 09:56 AM

Why do people are refering to tumble as a movement? It's a skill check, much like jump.

The tumble isn't movement. The movement that happens while you use tumble is, however, movement. Folks are mostly using tumble as shorthand for, "Movement during which you use tumble to not provoke AoO's," although it gets used in that fashion enough that I wouldn't really even consider it shorthand.

The movement that happens is, in fact, movement. Because it is movement, Thicket of Blades says it provokes AoOs, even if it's not a sort of movement that normally provokes AoOs.

Tumble says that you can roll it "as part of normal movement," and that, if you succeed, that movement no longer provokes an AoO.

Because Tumble is not, itself, a form of movement, Thicket of Blades does not modify nor provide exception to its rule. Because Tumble applies to any "normal movement" which would provoke an AoO, it provides specific exception to Thicket of Blades's declaration that the movement would provoke.

Mikeavelli

2014-02-28, 11:09 AM

Tumble is a skill which, when you perform any sort of movement which provokes AoO, allows you to roll against a DC set by how much you're moving compared to your movement speed. If you succeed, it negates the AoO you provoke.

A 5 ft step is not a form of movement, it's a miscellaneous action that allows you to move 5 feet and doesn't provoke attacks of opportunities. Normally.

A withdraw action is not a form of movement, it's a special action in combat that allows you to ignore being threatened for one square.

Tumble is not a form of movement, it's something you do as part of a move.

----

Tumble is not dramatically different than the two examples already provided to hammer home the points that any means any movement.

If this 'tumble is an exception' interpretation of the rules was any more tortured, it would be in Barad-Dur giving up the name and hometown of the Hobbit who stole the one ring.

Drachasor

2014-02-28, 01:03 PM

The movement that happens is, in fact, movement. Because it is movement, Thicket of Blades says it provokes AoOs, even if it's not a sort of movement that normally provokes AoOs.

Thicket of Blades does not say that.

TuggyNE

2014-02-28, 06:51 PM

A 5 ft step is not a form of movement, it's a miscellaneous action that allows you to move 5 feet and doesn't provoke attacks of opportunities. Normally.

The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action.

Clearly 5' steps are, in fact, movement. They are not move actions, but neither is running.

A withdraw action is not a form of movement, it's a special action in combat that allows you to ignore being threatened for one square.

Withdraw
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. […] You can’t take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.
If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal.
You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don’t have a listed speed.

Take 5-Foot Step
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. […]
You can only take a 5-foot step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. […]
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

By the similarity here, it would certainly seem that Withdrawing is also movement; again, it does not take a move action, but neither does running.

Tumble is not a form of movement, it's something you do as part of a move.

DC 15: Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.[…]
Accelerated Tumbling
You try to tumble past or through enemies more quickly than normal. By accepting a -10 penalty on your Tumble checks, you can move at your full speed instead of one-half your speed.
[…]
Action
Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action.

Here we see that, quite unlike the others, Tumble has no action associated and is explicitly part of any form of normal movement rather than movement on its own, though it imposes certain limitations on total speed.