Tumbling on a Charge

[Andezzar]

In the Simple Q&A thread we had some different opinions whether it is possible to tumble while charging. Here are the relevant posts:
Q24
Can Tumble be used during a charge?

A24

No.

Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action.

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.

While Rules Compendium may say on pg 27 that you can Tumble during a charge, primary source rules say you go by the Player's Handbook, which says you can't.

A 24 Contention

That is not what the Tumble rule says. It says that no separate action is required and that tumbling is part of movement. It also says that the check is made as part of the move action. It does not say that the tumble check cannot be made during movement that is not a move action (like a charge).


RE:A 24 Contention

Yes, it is. It's literally how it's writen in the book. It says it's part of a movement, so a Tumble check is a move action. Emphasys on the "so".

However, further discussion should be held in a separate thread.

If the second part of the sentence meant "so the tumble check can only be part of a move action", it would contradict the first part "Tumbling is part of a movement". Movement can come in the form of a move action or in other forms. CAdv also allows running while tumbling. Running is a Full Round Action.

Sprinting Tumble: You can try to tumble past or through an opponent’s space while running by accepting a –20 penalty on your Tumble check.

[heavyfuel]

I stand by my view that since the PHB specifically calls for a move action during Tumble checks, you can't do it during other actions.

However, a rule can have exceptions to it in other books, and this fact by itself doesn't violate the Primary Source rule, as is the case with Running and Tumbling. Specific beats general. It requires a move action, unless you're running, in which case it's part of the full-round running action.



Despite of what I believe to be the RAW, I do think it's a stupid rule, and allow my players to use Tumble during almost any movement (except Swimming, which I require a Swim check). This stems mostly from the fact that it's usually not the Batman Wizard that's doing all the tumbling, but the melee brute trying to get to his target, and we all know how much help these guys need.

[PallentisLunam]

RAW doesn't call for a move action during a tumble check it calls for a tumble check during a move action. The two are very different.

You "fix" is to employ the rule as it is written.

[Telonius]

If you take the "can't do it" interpretation:


If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.

By a strict reading, I think that would mean that you couldn't tumble as part of a charge if you were acting normally, but you could if your actions are being restricted (like by a Slow spell). Which is just plain weird.

[Hal0Badger]

Action: Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action.

It is a part of movement, not just move action. You do not tumble while getting your potion out of your belt.

Charge starts with a movement, ends with an attack roll. Movement for charge is restricted, however Rules Compendium says, you can both jump and tumble as long as you satisfy the movement rules of charge attack. Therefore, you can tumble during your charge, provided you satisfy the rules of charge.

[heavyfuel]

RAW doesn't call for a move action during a tumble check it calls for a tumble check during a move action. The two are very different.

You "fix" is to employ the rule as it is written.

Not true.


Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action.


Synonyms
10. See therefore.


adverb
1. in consequence of that; as a result; consequently:

The designers could've writen the sentence as "Tumbling is part of movement, consequently a Tumble check is part of a move action." and it would be just as correct.

Now, of course that the word "so" has many other meanings, but this one is the only one that gives the sentence meaning.



If you take the "can't do it" interpretation:

By a strict reading, I think that would mean that you couldn't tumble as part of a charge if you were acting normally, but you could if your actions are being restricted (like by a Slow spell). Which is just plain weird.

something something RAW dysfunction thread.

[PallentisLunam]

The designers could've writen the sentence as "Tumbling is part of movement, consequently a Tumble check is part of a move action." and it would be just as correct.

Now, of course that the word "so" has many other meanings, but this one is the only one that gives the sentence meaning.

The developers use of "so" has nothing to do with my argument. It clearly says that there is no action required to tumble but rather that a tumble check is made as part of a separate action, specifically an action that involves movement.

If we apply your interpretation, using the tumble skill to avoid AoOs would require two move actions, one to actually move and another to tumble while doing so. That's not what is required by RAW.

You've gotten so hung up on the "so" you've missed the "Not applicable" and the "is part of"

[Diarmuid]

It is a part of movement, not just move action. You do not tumble while getting your potion out of your belt.

Charge starts with a movement, ends with an attack roll. Movement for charge is restricted, however Rules Compendium says, you can both jump and tumble as long as you satisfy the movement rules of charge attack. Therefore, you can tumble during your charge, provided you satisfy the rules of charge.

This assumes that the RC is accepted as a valid source of RAW, but it in no way supercedes the PHB as primary source for anything.

[PallentisLunam]

Consider this:

The tumble skill allows for a character to treat a fall as 10 ft shorter than it actually is by making a DC 15 tumble check. There is no clause in the tumble skill requiring that the character fall intentionally as is the case with the jump skill. Which means the character can get knocked off of something and still retain their full set of actions.

Now let's assume a character used a fall to make a charge. This would be allowed by RAW provided that the character fulfill the requirements of a charge attack. Moving (falling) at least 10 ft, having a clear path, and moving to the closest space from which they can attack the opponent.

If a character did this and then tumbled to reduce his falling damage it would be legal as far at the rules are concerned. Therefore you can tumble as part of a charge.

[heavyfuel]

The developers use of "so" has nothing to do with my argument. It clearly says that there is no action required to tumble but rather that a tumble check is made as part of a separate action, specifically an action that involves movement.

If we apply your interpretation, using the tumble skill to avoid AoOs would require two move actions, one to actually move and another to tumble while doing so. That's not what is required by RAW.

You've gotten so hung up on the "so" you've missed the "Not applicable" and the "is part of"

Re-read my post. It IS part of a movement, but the rules explicitly call out that this movement must be a move action (or a full-round Run action)

[Psyren]

This assumes that the RC is accepted as a valid source of RAW, but it in no way supercedes the PHB as primary source for anything.

And we're back to the "There are only 11 base classes in D&D because PHB is the primary source on classes" ridiculousness. And people wonder why I switched to PF.

[heavyfuel]

Consider this:

The tumble skill allows for a character to treat a fall as 10 ft shorter than it actually is by making a DC 15 tumble check. There is no clause in the tumble skill requiring that the character fall intentionally as is the case with the jump skill. Which means the character can get knocked off of something and still retain their full set of actions.

Now let's assume a character used a fall to make a charge. This would be allowed by RAW provided that the character fulfill the requirements of a charge attack. Moving (falling) 10 ft, having a clear path, and moving to the closest space from which they can attack the opponent.

If a character did this and then tumbled to reduce his falling damage it would be legal as far at the rules are concerned. Therefore you can tumble as part of a charge.

You provided only one case in which you can tumble during a charge, which does make the answer to "Can you tumble during a charge?" a "Yes, but only if you're falling, and only to avoid/reduce fall damage".

Doesn't mean you can tumble to avoid AoOs, which I can only assume is why the question was asked in the first place, because only reducing damage from a fall can be done as an instant reaction, instead of a move action.

[Andezzar]

Re-read my post. It IS part of a movement, but the rules explicitly call out that this movement must be a move action (or a full-round Run action)If you discount the rules in the RC due to the Primary Source rule, you must also discount tumbling while running or falling. If you use a full round action to run or fall as a non-action you do not have a move action (without some extra action ability). So you cannot make a tumble check as part of the move action.

[PallentisLunam]

Re-read my post. It IS part of a movement, but the rules explicitly call out that this movement must be a move action (or a full-round Run action)

Actually the language "move action" is used to refer specifically to the move move action, as in moving your speed, and to a number of move equivalent actions link for reference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm). So either we assume that the text used in the tumble skill refers to an action that contains movement or we allow Tumbling to avoid AoOs for drinking a potion.

Edit: Besides if you can tumble during a charge as an immediate reaction why couldn't you do it as an active choice? The only change in the requirements is that it be your turn, because tumble's action line is "not applicable" meaning it never requires its own action

[sleepyphoenixx]

The Rules Compendium says you can tumble during a charge. It also says, right on page 5 in the introduction:

When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.

You can go on about primary source rules as much as you like, but in this case "specific trumps general" also means "the book says it supersedes normal primary source rules, so it does".

So the answer to the question "Can you tumble during a charge?" is "Yes, you can, as long as you meet all other criteria for making a charge before, during and after tumbling. (RC, p28)", because RC specifically is the primary source on any rule contained therein.

[Amphetryon]

The Rules Compendium says you can tumble during a charge. It also says, right on page 5 in the introduction:


You can go on about primary source rules as much as you like, but in this case "specific trumps general" also means "the book says it supersedes normal primary source rules, so it does".

So the answer to the question "Can you tumble during a charge?" is "Yes, you can, as long as you meet all other criteria for making a charge before, during and after tumbling. (RC, p28)", because RC specifically is the primary source on any rule contained therein.

I believe the general counter-argument here is that the Deluxe PHb came out after RC, does not include this specific language re: Tumbling on a Charge, and supersedes RC's claim of primary source by being of more recent vintage. I qualified it with "I believe" because I am not the progenitor of that particular argument.

[Psyren]

I believe the general counter-argument here is that the Deluxe PHb came out after RC, does not include this specific language re: Tumbling on a Charge, and supersedes RC's claim of primary source by being of more recent vintage. I qualified it with "I believe" because I am not the progenitor of that particular argument.

That only matters if there is a contradiction. If one source says "yes, you can" and the other is silent/vague on the subject, then you go with the definite yes, even if it's older.

Specific Trumps General has to beat Primary Source or the game breaks down; you couldn't have splatbooks for anything.

(I know you're not the advocate of this particular, silly stance, I'm just quoting your post to illustrate what I'm arguing against.)

[Amphetryon]

That only matters if there is a contradiction. If one source says "yes, you can" and the other is silent/vague on the subject, then you go with the definite yes, even if it's older.

Specific Trumps General has to beat Primary Source or the game breaks down; you couldn't have splatbooks for anything.

(I know you're not the advocate of this particular, silly stance, I'm just quoting your post to illustrate what I'm arguing against.)

Whether you see silence on the matter as a contradiction is, indeed, part of the ongoing debate.

[Hal0Badger]

This assumes that the RC is accepted as a valid source of RAW, but it in no way supercedes the PHB as primary source for anything.

Ignoring a book, which only expands on the rules and how to use them, because earlier versions are "silent" or "not clear enough" about a rule, is just burying your head into the ground.

Rules Compendium's sole purpose is to explain rules, nothing more. It even states is supersedes other sources. If you are not going to take it, it is your call.

But by "Rules as written", you can tumble during a charge, as long as you satisfy the conditions of charge movement.

[Troacctid]

Whether you see silence on the matter as a contradiction is, indeed, part of the ongoing debate.

If you think it is a contradiction, then it's easy, because in the event of a contradiction, the more specific rule always wins. Tumbling during a charge is more specific than tumbling in general, so the Rules Compendium takes precedence.

[heavyfuel]

Actually the language "move action" is used to refer specifically to the move move action, as in moving your speed, and to a number of move equivalent actions link for reference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm). So either we assume that the text used in the tumble skill refers to an action that contains movement or we allow Tumbling to avoid AoOs for drinking a potion.

Edit: Besides if you can tumble during a charge as an immediate reaction why couldn't you do it as an active choice? The only change in the requirements is that it be your turn, because tumble's action line is "not applicable" meaning it never requires its own action

Only if there's movement. Not just any movement though, but Movement as defined by the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm). So you can't tumble to draw an item without provoking as there's no movement there.

@edit: Because the rules say you can't. They don't make sense most of the time, and there are 8 entire threads (lets not forget the "Rules that don't make sense" thread we had a few months ago) dedicated to just how absurd they can be.

[Amphetryon]

If you think it is a contradiction, then it's easy, because in the event of a contradiction, the more specific rule always wins. Tumbling during a charge is more specific than tumbling in general, so the Rules Compendium takes precedence.

I have not stated a position as my own.

[PallentisLunam]

Only if there's movement. Not just any movement though, but Movement as defined by the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm). So you can't tumble to draw an item without provoking as there's no movement there.

@edit: Because the rules say you can't. They don't make sense most of the time, and there are 8 entire threads (lets not forget the "Rules that don't make sense" thread we had a few months ago) dedicated to just how absurd they can be.

You were the one who fixated on the use of the words "move action". I merely pointed out that a move action doesn't just refer to the action of moving. And if you are going to read it that way then any move action not just move actions with movement can be used with a tumble.

You can either read it as any movement or any move actions. You can't read it any move actions that involve movement, the language used doesn't allow for that reading. Now one of the potential readings is correct and the other isn't I think it's clear which one I am in favor of.

Yes there are rules that don't make sense as written but this isn't one of them. The clarification in the RC is just that, a clarification, not a change.