Flying and Tumble

[Ranting Fool]

I think I asked this question a year ago but since I don't remember I'll ask it again.

Can a creature that's flying use tumble to avoid Attacks of Op?

If it's not RAW do you playgrounders feel that this would be anything more then a minor boost? (I was thinking that if you don't have perfect flight you take a penalty or something)

[hymer]

When flying you generally won't have problems getting around an opponent, so for most it's not an issue. If you're flying melee trying to get close to someone with bigger reach, you'll need one of the top two grades of flight to be able to hover and make full attacks.
I'd make up no special rules and just allow it, as it seems to be rather peripheral, and strike mostly at melee people who don't need any discouragement.

[Kazudo]

It's really a meh problem, either you have it or you don't and most creatures won't have the problem. If you can't hover, then you can't really do a full round attack (at least that's how I'm figuring things, not sure about the RAW of it all) and really, if you can over within range of someone's weaponry then an AoO wouldn't be too bad. Sure, I'd probably institute a penalty for the attack since it's a flying individual, say a -2, but really that's it.

[nedz]

Yes

There is nothing in the Tumble rules which says anything other than moving through AoOs. You should be able to ignore some of the terrain penalties.

[nedz]

Where is the term normal movement defined ?

[lytokk]

I would almost think that tumble rules could be used in flight to simulate stunts, at least in 3.5 where there is no fly skill. Corkscrews, aileron rolls and such. I don't think there's RAW rulings for it, but I could see it working. Granted, anything less than Good manueverability should impose a penalty to the moves.

[Lightlawbliss]

as a less rule based and more rl based argument: Can a creature with wings do a flip? Can a creature with wings roll over? Can a creature with wings adjust it's path to not get hit? yes, yes, and yes. Sounds to me like tumbling while flying is perfectly possible irl.

[lytokk]

I don't think any living bird would do something like that. I would think they are capable of doing it, but maneuvers like that would be counterintuitive to things like staying in the air, unless you practiced them, and no living bird is going to do something like that.

Best I could find was a hawk tucking its wings in to fit through a hole mid flight and fan them back out to keep flying once on the other side.

But this is the realm of fantasy really, so why not? No such thing as physics to start out with.

[nedz]

Tumbler Pigeons (https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqInIhqhT4ksA29N2BQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBzbm RuNmJiBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMjE-?p=tumbler+pigeons&vid=9a5125ab5b6cc10e07a133b797515b91&l=00%3A30&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.6 08025150057351470%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWG wDOzpTcgs&tit=Re%3A+Wholly+Rollers+are+Birmingham+Rollers&c=20&sigr=11agrt2tv&sigt=119tqtb5c&age=141074654091&&tt=b)

[Lightlawbliss]

I think I'd want to see videos of birds doing flips and rolling over. I'm sure flying insects can do some of that, but their low weight creates different aerodynamic issues. Powered flight (man-made aircraft) have fixed wings and create their own wind-streams using jets or propellers, so have entirely different dynamics. Maybe it's possible. I just haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUV81ukrsHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8SrJ3SG6FQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-EA-1Tam6c

[Synar]

Wow. Just wow.
I had no idea birds could do that.


(And by the way, saying that perfect maneouvrability is needed to tumble in the air is like saying thatto tumble on the ground, you should be able to freely move in any direction at anypoint (basically levitating on the ground). You don't need perfect maneouvrability on the ground, why would you need it in the air (where you've got more liberty of movement? I'm not saying that there should not be a maneouvrability limit, as it is a pertinent idea, but putting the requirement to perfect is unreasonnable, as those videos just demonstrated (the only birds with perfect might be the colibris and birds alike them).

[Curmudgeon]

Tumble is generally only allowed as part of normal movement. Flying (also, swimming and climbing) is not normal movement.
D&D is a game based on creatures which have modes of movement beyond what Humans have, so it's unreasonable (and outside the rules) to think "normal" is based on Human limitations. It's normal movement for your character if they have a listed speed. Characters can swim or climb if they make the appropriate skill checks, but those are only normal movement if the character has a listed speed.

movement modes

Creatures may have modes of movement other than walking and running. These are natural, not magical, unless specifically noted in a monster description.

[HammeredWharf]

The only limitation that applies is that you must be able to move at full speed to use Tumble, so you can't tumble upwards with a less-than-perfect maneuverability.

[jiriku]

Tumbling while flying is aerial acrobatics. Totally legit. Also awesome.

[nedz]

Since Tumbling consumes half your movement allowance (for two of the standard uses; the third standard usage isn't relevant to flying), and creatures of Average or worse manoeuvrability must spend the other half in forward movement, that means in any turn in which it Tumbles, it can't also turn or climb, although it could turn if it also dives.


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.

Well unless you take a -10 on the skill check.

[The Grue]

Tumble + Fly = Do a barrel roll?

[nedz]

Well you could do an immalman, but I think that requires the Wingover feat.

[Ranting Fool]

Hey guys thanks for the replies (and the vids, who doesn't love angry birds)

Was mostly thinking of Tumble being used as part of Fly-By-Attack so swooping past hitting and barrel rolling to avoid AoO's.

Was thinking.
Perfect Flight = No check pen.
Good Flight = Either -2 or -4
Average Flight = Either -4 or -8
Poor/lower = Not able.

[weckar]

I never realized that glaring weakness of fly-by attack... Wow. Um.... Yeah, those modifiers make sense.

[nedz]

Any of these feats would do

Adroit Flyby Attack ( Draconomicon p67)
Prereqs
Flyby Attack (MW) , Hover (MM) (or) , Wingover (MM) , Fly speed 90

Great Flyby Attack [3.0] ( Savage Species p35)
Prereqs
Flyby Attack (MM) , Fly speed

Improved Flyby Attack [3.0] ( Epic Level Handbook p70) ( Savage Species p36)
Prereqs
Flyby Attack (MM) , Mobility (PH) , Fly speed

[hymer]

I never realized that glaring weakness of fly-by attack... Wow. Um.... Yeah, those modifiers make sense.

I'm guessing it was mostly intended to be used with a ranged attack (a drive-by is usually a shooting, isn't it?). It can still work well in melee with surprise or good reach.

@ OP: As for the modifiers, well... I wouldn't have any. But if you feel you must those are as good as any, I suppose.

[Lightlawbliss]

Hey guys thanks for the replies (and the vids, who doesn't love angry birds)

Was mostly thinking of Tumble being used as part of Fly-By-Attack so swooping past hitting and barrel rolling to avoid AoO's.

Was thinking.
Perfect Flight = No check pen.
Good Flight = Either -2 or -4
Average Flight = Either -4 or -8
Poor/lower = Not able.

let's use an eagle as our base line for average flight (one of those vids I posted above showed eagles tumbleing so we know eagles can). Unless I am missing some bonus, eagles have +2 to tumble (from dex) and average flight. We can see that they can reliably make, in combat, some basic rolls and flips: atleast a dc 5 and possibly as high as dc 15. if you give average flight a -8, the eagle would net a -6: could never hit a dc 15 and would not be reliable on a dc 5. if you did -4, the eagle would net a -2: a dc 5 is reliably possible and a dc 15 is hittable.

these same stats hold for a raven, which also represents most birds of the same size.

[Synar]

Shouldn't perfect net a bonus?
Since you have more mobility/liberty of movement than on the ground and all that?
But I guess you can't use the ground as a support point and tumbling surface so it may involve different technics and still be as hard, so no penalty no bonus could also make sense.

[Flickerdart]

But I guess you can't use the ground as a support point and tumbling surface
Perfect maneuverability fliers can turn instantly without losing any velocity. They don't need a support point; any point in space is a support point for them.

[Darkweave31]

As Ashtagon and Nedz already pointed out, there is already a built in penalty for those with average maneuverability or less which is balancing tumble's need to move at only half speed with the maneuverability's need to move at least half speed. This can be negated by taking a -10 to their tumble check. Thus, really no reason to penalize it even more. I believe there are some sort of rules that make air currents count as some sort of difficult terrain, but I have no idea where from it's been so long.

I've never really understood the viewpoint that one can't tumble while flying. Never seen a decent RAW, RAI, flavor, or realism argument against it. It's just not leaving an opening for an attack while you move, you don't have to be doing somersaults and backflips that probably make you an easier target. To me it's more likely to be a well timed sidestep than it is to be a jedi force jump twirl double back flip. I went of on a tangent there... In the air it's the same principle except now you have 3 dimensions to move off the line of attack.

[Trundlebug]

Wow. Just wow.
I had no idea birds could do that.

Not to single you out, but I have had this problem in general with gaming. Often ppl at my table are "nerds" and that's totally fine. When they start dictating " people can't do that!" I have a problem.

Just because a person is a 80 lb weakling with absolutely no RL physical experience does not give them reign to say "that can't be done.". It bugs me.

I am a hunter. I hunt with a bow. The amount of sheer ignorance that is linked with that role and the skills associated is astounding.

When people say "you can't tumble while flying!" I say "Why not?" and am answered with mumbles and half sentences.

Off topic but my little rant is pointed at "magic can do everything" vs "I can't imagine doing it so it can't be done." disparity that goes on in D&D between spellcasters and nots.

Point? Ppl are dumb and unimaginative. Really.

[Synar]

Not to single you out, but I have had this problem in general with gaming. Often ppl at my table are "nerds" and that's totally fine. When they start dictating " people can't do that!" I have a problem.

Just because a person is a 80 lb weakling with absolutely no RL physical experience does not give them reign to say "that can't be done.". It bugs me.

I am a hunter. I hunt with a bow. The amount of sheer ignorance that is linked with that role and the skills associated is astounding.

When people say "you can't tumble while flying!" I say "Why not?" and am answered with mumbles and half sentences.

Off topic but my little rant is pointed at "magic can do everything" vs "I can't imagine doing it so it can't be done." disparity that goes on in D&D between spellcasters and nots.

Point? Ppl are dumb and unimaginative. Really.

Hum.
I'm not sure why you quoted me, but I guess you believe this is my opinion too, so I will answer? Actually, I'm more going by the philosophy of Socrate (know that you know nothing) and the fact that learning is awesome. So my reaction was more: "oh, I did not know that birds could do that, that is so awesome! I've learned something new!".

But I'm not sure why people being ignorant about a specific subject is such a problem when they are willing to learn when faced with proofs that they are ignorant on the subject. After all, there is so much to learn, and whatever you say, you can't learn everything (not even everything in a small fraction of a specific domain (for quite a lot of domains, at least)).

And telling to a fellow gamer: no, x can't do that (again, this is a theoric situation, I've never been in such a situation (at least in the most recent past few years)) does not strike me as so unreasonnable unless you know your fellow gamer is more knowledgeable on a subject than you or he has sources or people backing him up because he could actually be wrong.

If people don't know you are a hunter for example, and nitpick with you on things you master and they know nothing about -but think they do- (I'm guessing this is the sort of things you're talking about, but sorry if I'm wrong), I understand their position, at least until they learn that you're actually a master of the subject.

To give an exemple, as I'm still a math student (in kind of an equivalent of college), if I was talking about math with another student, and they are disagreeing with me, I will consider the possibility I'm wrong, but will also try to convince them that they are the one wrong; however, if a math professor told me that I was wrong, I will also consider the possibility that he could be the one making an error, but I will focus on the possibility of where is the error I am making, because I know that they are more knowledgeable than me on a subject.

I'm not sure I made a clear point or if you actually disagree with me, but being quoted made me feel forced to answer, so, hum, well. I hope this is readable, in a passable english, and no rudeness intended:smallsmile: