Thicket of Blades question.

[adriana]

Ok so I'm lv 6 and I'm a gestalt character.

currrent levels are Cloistered Cleric 5/ RKV 1// crusader 5/ Cloistered Cleric 1.

Now usually you can't get thicket of blades until lv 8 as a crusader, however; RKV grants one stance known at first level. So am I correct in saying that I could take thicket of blankets at this level?

Edit:
fixed the title.... I must be tired... Thicket of blankets. Zzzzz.....

[Agamemmnoth]

My question is does thicket of blades even need combat relfexes to work properly? It seems that Thicket provides all the attacks you could need.

[Gildedragon]

First, pardon my analness.- Wouldn't it be tidier to write your gestalting as: Cloistered Cleric 6// Crusader 5/RKV 1?

Regarding your question: Yeap. That is precisely what can be done as your IL for Crusader maneuvers is 6.

@Agamemmnoth: They provoke but it doesn't mean you can make an attack. Also thicket means you can't tumble away without provoking, etc...

[adriana]

First, pardon my analness.- Wouldn't it be tidier to write your gestalting as: Cloistered Cleric 6// Crusader 5/RKV 1?

Regarding your question: Yeap. That is precisely what can be done as your IL for Crusader maneuvers is 6.

yeah it would now that I think of it. like I said

I'm tired lol.

[Agamemmnoth]

First, pardon my analness.- Wouldn't it be tidier to write your gestalting as: Cloistered Cleric 6// Crusader 5/RKV 1?

Regarding your question: Yeap. That is precisely what can be done as your IL for Crusader maneuvers is 6.

@Agamemmnoth: They provoke but it doesn't mean you can make an attack. Also thicket means you can't tumble away without provoking, etc...


That makes sense. Thanks.

[ben-zayb]

@Agamemmnoth: They provoke but it doesn't mean you can make an attack. Also thicket means you can't tumble away without provoking, etc...To the OP: check with your DM if this actuslly works if you intend to take advantage of this. This is an often debated topic that will likely never be resolved.

[adriana]

To the OP: check with your DM if this actuslly works if you intend to take advantage of this. This is an often debated topic that will likely never be resolved. which part? Tumble or combat reflexes?

[eggynack]

which part? Tumble or combat reflexes?
Tumble, and its interaction with thicket. Basically, tumble explicitly states that it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, and thicket of blades explicitly says that it makes there always be attacks of opportunity. There's more to it than that, but it's all rather complicated and annoying. It's on the short list of specific arguments (as opposed to broader stuff like a particular class' power level) that is sure to cause a thread to descend into an inferno of nothingness, and that is equally sure to never really be resolved. For reference, I tend towards the side that thinks it's an ambiguous rules issue with no absolute RAW solution.

[adriana]

For reference, I tend towards the side that thinks it's an ambiguous rules issue with no absolute RAW solution.

there seems to be a lot of those in d&d apparently :smallbiggrin:.

thanks for poppin in :smallbiggrin:

[StreamOfTheSky]

Thicket of Blades vs. Tumble is the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332886-Tumble-vs-Thicket-of-Blades) Two contradicting absolutes enter, only one can leave.

Anyway, read the thread there if you want to see the argument on each side. Personally, I'm inclined to just houserule that Thicket adds +10 to tumble DCs just as the equal-level Roots of the Mountain stance does. That way both are still useful in that situation.
If I had to pick one absolute over the other, I'd go with tumble both due to how the two abilities read and the fact that at least tumble requires winning a check (even if it's easy) while as Thicket is a straight up nope, never, not gonna happen and thus I dislike it more.

[adriana]

Thicket of Blades vs. Tumble is the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332886-Tumble-vs-Thicket-of-Blades) Two contradicting absolutes enter, only one can leave.

Anyway, read the thread there if you want to see the argument on each side. Personally, I'm inclined to just houserule that Thicket adds +10 to tumble DCs just as the equal-level Roots of the Mountain stance does. That way both are still useful in that situation.
If I had to pick one absolute over the other, I'd go with tumble both due to how the two abilities read and the fact that at least tumble requires winning a check (even if it's easy) while as Thicket is a straight up nope, never, not gonna happen and thus I dislike it more.

I like this idea, makes the best of both worlds. Thicket of Blades makes it harder for tumble to work, but it doesn't completely screw the rogue over. It's a good balance and a good house rule.

[Ellowryn]

I like this idea, makes the best of both worlds. Thicket of Blades makes it harder for tumble to work, but it doesn't completely screw the rogue over. It's a good balance and a good house rule.

I like the general idea, but +10 is still bad cause just about any mid to high level npc with a decent dex score can make this DC more often then not, while npc's of low level are completely unable to beat it even optimizing for it. Some sort of scaling DC or even better an opposed check (concentration would fit rather nicely) would keep the power even across all levels.

At least that would be how i would be willing to compromise if i was a player. Im in the stops-everything camp, being as 2 of the 3 types of non-magical movement types that specifically dont cause AoO's are called out to not work so why should tumble somehow get past.

I believe that ultimately if either side decides to include the ability then it should be discussed with everyone in the game group so that a decision can be made that satisfies the group one way or the other.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like the general idea, but +10 is still bad cause just about any mid to high level npc with a decent dex score can make this DC more often then not, while npc's of low level are completely unable to beat it even optimizing for it. Some sort of scaling DC or even better an opposed check (concentration would fit rather nicely) would keep the power even across all levels.

At least that would be how i would be willing to compromise if i was a player. Im in the stops-everything camp, being as 2 of the 3 types of non-magical movement types that specifically dont cause AoO's are called out to not work so why should tumble somehow get past.

I believe that ultimately if either side decides to include the ability then it should be discussed with everyone in the game group so that a decision can be made that satisfies the group one way or the other.

Make it? Or make it reliably/always? And is this at full speed (-10) or half speed, which inhibits movement options? Are you assuming the allowance of custom magic items of tumble +5 (or more) that is totally up to the DM to green light?

Going by messageboards, you'd think rogues all auto-tumble by level 3 and can trivially move at full speed and never eat an AoO by level 8-10, but that's NEVER been my experience. And rogue, monk, and swordsage type characters make up literally half the ones I've ever played.

Even if it were true (not holding my breath on that)....the classes with tumble generally NEED it to safely skirmish in and out of melee. Without reliably and safely being able to do so, they are unplayable (for reference, see Pathfinder). Not to mention there are low level teleportation effects like benign transposition (put on a wand in a wand chamber and there isn't even provoking or casting defensively to worry about) and Abrupt Jaunt to tell a lockdown build where he can go shove it anyway. It's galling that the actual mobility classes are supposed to be worse at it than spellcasters. Plus 10 is a big jump to the DC, it's hardly trivial at all. Any higher, and Roots of the Mountain would look pointless by comparison.

[Anlashok]

Root of the Mountain is already pretty lame on its own. Making Thicket questionable because Roots is bad doesn't make a lot of sense and it's the same sort of logic that leaves Pathfinder martials so crummy.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Root of the Mountain is already pretty lame on its own. Making Thicket questionable because Roots is bad doesn't make a lot of sense and it's the same sort of logic that leaves Pathfinder martials so crummy.

If Roots didn't have the standard issue "it's a stone dragon stance, so load up your cart with these restrictions" crap, it'd be a perfectly fine stance for the benefits it gives. I actually quite like it... But the whole needing to re-start it every round you more than 5 ft step is just too penalizing.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The tumble numbers, if anyone's interested, for a dex-focused character who basically just invests skill ranks:

Level 1: +9 = 4 ranks + 5 dex -- a decent (75%) chance to pass a half-movement tumble in normal circumstances
Level 4: +14 = 7 ranks + 5 dex + 2 synergy (jump) -- auto-passes a half-movement tumble in normal circumstances.
Level 11: +24 = 14 ranks + 8 dex + 2 synergy -- auto-passes a full-movement tumble in normal circumstances, or a half-movement tumble with a +10 DC (like Stream's thicket)
Level 18: +34 = 21 ranks + 11 dex + 2 synergy -- auto-asses a full-movement tumble with a +10 DC added on top

Obviously if you're a factotum, or you're some kind of shapeshifter in a dex-y form, or if you're not dex-focused (like a mage investing in tumble ranks cross-class), or any number of special cases, the numbers change. And by level 3ish you'll have teleportation options that get around tumble restrictions quite nicely.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I've had many dex-focused characters in 3E. Not a one of them started with a 20 in dex....

But yeah, that's base DC. If there's more than one foe to get around, or terrain modifiers, it goes up a bit more. Perhaps most people don't use multiple enemies or awkward terrain like I do as a DM...

[Khedrac]

And something else to remember is that dual progression classes such as Mystic Theurge are explicitly barred from standard Gestalt.

RKV is a dual progression class whichever way you look at it, and even if your DM permits it, it should not be paired with either the casting class it advances or the maneuver class it advances - so at level 6 you have RKV1 // ? 1 where the ? is neither cloistered cleric nor crusader (why not go magic user just to sheer silliness, or factotum?)

[adriana]

And something else to remember is that dual progression classes such as Mystic Theurge are explicitly barred from standard Gestalt.

RKV is a dual progression class whichever way you look at it, and even if your DM permits it, it should not be paired with either the casting class it advances or the maneuver class it advances - so at level 6 you have RKV1 // ? 1 where the ? is neither cloistered cleric nor crusader (why not go magic user just to sheer silliness, or factotum?)

Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations-such as the arcane trickster, mystic theurge, and eldritch knight-should be prohibited if you’re using gestalt classes, because they unduly complicate the game balance of what’s already a high-powered variant. here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm)

1. it is not prohibited, it's suggested it not be allowed. It's a bit awkward having cleric on one side and RKV on the other but it's the only way to have lv 20 casting, not loose any caster levels on turn undead, and lv 9 maneuvers. Granted I could just go strait cleric//crusader but I wanted RKV in there.

2. Two other classes in the party are going full factotum.

3 Character concept. The concept behind this character is a very religious, LN necromantic cleric that reveres death. Not in an OMG I'M SO EVIL I'M GOING EAT CHILDREN!!! She reveres death and believes it is nothing to be afraid of but respected. So in her mind she's not evil. Crusader and cleric fit the theme. So does RKV. Factotum doesn't fit the theme. to me concept > power. Sure I could ditch RKV but it looks like a nice prestige.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I've had many dex-focused characters in 3E. Not a one of them started with a 20 in dex....

But yeah, that's base DC. If there's more than one foe to get around, or terrain modifiers, it goes up a bit more. Perhaps most people don't use multiple enemies or awkward terrain like I do as a DM...You never played a +2 dex race with a rolled or bought 18? Granted I play a lot of casters and brutes but that's what I end up seeing across the table.

IMO, a PC whose main shtick is controlling the battlefield with his reach weapon shouldn't have to rely on multiple nearby allies, or terrain modifiers, to make sure people can't just tumble by him. And like you said, enemies will teleport away anyway - and I don't mean mages; I mean anyone with enough cash to grab anklets of translocation. I do like the +10 idea, though. By the time the enemy tumbler can reliably make the half movement + thicket check, the controlling character probably has enough reach (large + spiked chain) to force him to full move tumble out of the threatened area, making it relevant still.