Thicket of Blades vs. Tumble

[Person_Man]

Thicket of Blades, a Devoted Spirit Maneuver, states "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." It also specifically prohibits them from using the Withdraw action.

Tumble allows you to "Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so."


So, does Thicket of Blades thwart Tumble?

My reading is no, it doesn't. It's a relatively low level manuever. The text specifically allows you to make an AoO when your enemy takes a 5 ft step or Withdraw action. But it doesn't grant any "extra" AoO. And it is silent on Tumble. And Tumble specifically allows you to move without provoking any AoO.

But the counter argument is pretty good as well. Thicket of Blades allows you to take an AoO on "any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement." Tumbling is movement.

I know for a fact that this has been debated before, but I was wondering if anyone has seen an official answer, or if the boards have come to a consensus on the matter.

Discuss.

[Arbitrarity]

WoTC CO boards seem to read it that way, but it's disputed. Thicket of blades vs. Tumble

Ah, custserv response on the thread. Buuut... it's customer service

[Vieux Vache]

I interpret to mean that it does trump tumble. You basically said it, tumble = movement, thicket of blades hits any movement.

[Damionte]

I hate these kinds of editing mistake on thier part.

Unfortunately there's no right answer to this one. In a rules as intended manner, you can evenely and fairly call it in either direction.

In a rules as written argument though, tumble trumps thicket.

Thicket says you get an attack of oportunity vs all movement. Tumble let'sd you avoid attacks of oportunity caused by your movement.

Thicket gives qualifers though that do NOT include tumble. It specifically eliminates withdrawal and 5 foot steps. Since it doesn't mention tumble tumble is not included by a strict interpretation of raw.

had they wanted to leave out loop hole they should have said you get the attack of opportunity regardless of opponent's ability to avoid attacks of opportunity. Or something to that sense. That would have covered tumble and anything else they may have thought up in the future.

[Jasdoif]

RAW, Tumble takes precedence because it's the more specific rule in the situation (the stance persists throughout the rounds, while the Tumble check only applies in one character's turn).

I strongly believe that this isn't how the stance was intended or should be used, however.

[MrNexx]

I bet they meant for tumble to not work. However, I would allow it with an increased DC (maybe add the attackers AB to the DC).

[Person_Man]

I bet they meant for tumble to not work. However, I would allow it with an increased DC (maybe add the attackers AB to the DC).

That sounds like a good compromise, though obviously its a house rule.

[MrNexx]

That sounds like a good compromise, though obviously its a house rule.

...so what?

[brian c]

...so what?

He just meant that although it makes sense, it doesn't answer the RAW question that was posed.


I have to agree that by RAW, tumble wins, but I would rather have it be the other way.

[Jack Mann]

...so what?

You do have a tendency to mention your own house rules without declaring them. This often confuses things, because it can look like you're saying that something is RAW when it isn't.

In this case, though, I think it's pretty clear you meant it as a house rule.

[MrNexx]

You do have a tendency to mention your own house rules without declaring them. This often confuses things, because it can look like you're saying that something is RAW when it isn't.

In this case, though, I think it's pretty clear you meant it as a house rule.

No, I have a tendency to say "I would do X". It's not lighting up neon, but it is 3rd grade reading level.

[Jack Mann]

The problem is it's not clear the context at times. For example, when someone has asked what the rules say. In the past (at least once that I can remember), you said, "I would rule that X," where X is your house rule, in a discussion of the rules. However, because of the context, it appeared that you were saying that you were ruling this to be the best interpretation of the RAW.

Simply saying "I would" does not make it clear that what your saying is a house rule. Someone else might say the same, and mean that they believed it to be the RAW interpretation. "I want to use bracers of armor for my monk. Can I do this by the rules?" "I would say yes." This is often because the rules may not be entirely clear, or they cannot remember exactly what the rules say. The use of "I would" is entirely valid here, but differs in meaning from your use. As well, in a discussion where someone has asked specifically what the rules say, this interpretation is much more likely. Now, those of us who have come to know your style will generally understand what you mean, but you can't expect everyone to know that you prefer house rules as a matter of course. Not everyone knows you like we do, big guy (or little guy, or whatever size guy you happen to be).

Again, where you use it in this thread, I don't see any ambiguity, due to your first sentence. But in the past, there has been.

[TheOOB]

There is no clear cut solution to this. It is a fallacy to assume that just because thicket of blades does not specifically mention tumble, that it does not effect tumble. Thicket of blades is very specific that all movement provokes AoOs, but then again, tumble is specific that movement provokes no AoOs. On the one hand you would think thicket would mention tumble, on the other

I personally think the intent is to make tumble not work, my general assumption being that abilities take precedence over skills, but thats just an assumption.

[AtomicKitKat]

Bear in mind that "Tumbling through your opponent's 'kill zone'" incorporates stuff like cartwheeling, twisting your body away from a stab, or even flipping off a handstand on your opponent's weapon shaft.

Since each one counters the other, the "fair" thing is Tumble wins, since it doesn't cause a "loss" on both sides. Perhaps let the Tumbler add his roll from Tumble(ie, the d20, without the ranks, the Dex bonus, etc.) to his AC vs the AoO.<=Houserule.

[Curmudgeon]

You can't decide this based on the simple text of the two rules, because they're both absolute in their statements. All we can do is note that Thicket of Blades came after the Tumble rules were in place and clearly stated, and said nothing at all about overcoming that well-known technique of avoiding movement-related AoOs.

This is either a colossal oversight, or an intention to leave the Tumble ability intact. I'm not sure which is the likelier option. Do you prefer to think of WotC's designers as inept, or just too lazy to put in something that, apparently, goes without saying?

[ByeLindgren]

Oh, I can't make a RAW ruling, but I can definitely chime in and say that WotC developers are inept.

[daggaz]

You guys need to look at the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and in this case it becomes abundantly clear. (remember, those two clauses exist even in modern, high courts, and for good reason.)

1.) Tumble is a skill which is normally (if not always, otherwise, whats the point of it) used to move more than five feet. This kind of movement normally incurs an AoO. Tumble negates this AoO.

2.) Thicket of Blades is a stance which allows AoO's on ALL movement, even the fundamentally AoO-free five-foot-step.

3.) Thicket of Blades was written after Tumble. For some wierd reason, people here seem to give precidence to tumble because it predates ToB. But this is wrong. Precidence in that direction should only be given when a rule is blatantly broken or wrong, in other words, you are throwing out the new rule. In this case, ToB is not broken, and was written with all the other rules in hindsight. They most assuredly were aware of tumble as a skill, and the use of the qualifier ALL, tho sloppy, does indeed include ALL movement, even tumbled.

4.) Tumble's qualifier of 'all' really only means 'any kind of movement in any direction which would normally incur an AoO.' Basically, you can hop, skip or jump your way past. Whatever you want. However, this was written before ToB, assuming normal, non-ToB combat. ToB clearly overlaps this with its new ruleset, especially if you take in light that it can strike the all holy 5-foot-step. Its a new skill. It has new, and precident setting powers.

I would say that, although sloppily written, it seems rather clear, by RAW, that Thicket of Blades will indeed supercede Tumble.

That said, I think it is more than fair to allow an opposing roll here, with increased DC, in the spirit of the opposing rolls law which precides over much of the combat system.

And on a further note, which is slightly off the point, Tumble is broken with its flat DC's and should allow opposing rolls anyhow based off of the oponents BaB/dex/etc what-have-you.

[Person_Man]

WotC is going to have to come out with an official FAQ or Sage Advice on this, because the texts clearly conflict.

There are some very good arguments on both sides. Here's another one:

If a rule is too good to be true, it usually is. Thicket of Blades requires a very modest investment (I'm not sure because I don't have my book in front of me, but I think you can get it with Anything 4/Crusader 1/Anything X, or 2 feats). As a stance, it can be used all the time, defeats 5 ft steps, and the Withdraw action. By itself, that's pretty strong. If it also defeats Tumble, then it essentially allows every melee build to pick up a reach weapon and dominate entire catagories of enemies (Rogues, Ninja, Scouts, Monks, Swordsages, etc). And compare Thicket of Blades to the Knight, an entire class built around battlefield control, which merely has the ability to raise the DC on Tumble by your Knight level.

So perhaps heres a better question: Given a "typical" four person party (Melee, Divine, Arcane, Skill Monkey), that is somewhat optimized (smart players, but no one is using Divine Metamagic, Celerity, etc) facing a mix of CR appropriate encounters, would you as DM allow the Melee build to dip into Crusader or use two feats in order to get Thicket of Blades and defeat Tumble? Or would you rule that it only effects 5 ft steps and the Withdraw Action?

Either way its not game breaking, because a smart DM can simply use fewer encounters involving enemies that rely on Tumble to balance things out. But if you take that kind of metagaming too far, it can occasionally ruin the game. Why bother building a PC that's great at defeating X if the DM never uses X, even though X is normally quite common?

[Amiria]

Thicket of Blades requires a very modest investment (I'm not sure because I don't have my book in front of me, but I think you can get it with Anything 4/Crusader 1/Anything X, or 2 feats).

No, not so easy, not Crusader 1, but Crusader 2. The first stance a martial adept gets is always a 1st level stance, regardless of his IL. The stances that a Crusader gets thereafter (i.e. at 2nd level) can be from any level up to his IL.

[Darrin]

So perhaps heres a better question: Given a "typical" four person party (Melee, Divine, Arcane, Skill Monkey), that is somewhat optimized (smart players, but no one is using Divine Metamagic, Celerity, etc) facing a mix of CR appropriate encounters, would you as DM allow the Melee build to dip into Crusader or use two feats in order to get Thicket of Blades and defeat Tumble? Or would you rule that it only effects 5 ft steps and the Withdraw Action?

I believe that depends on whether you think the Tumble ability to negate AoOs with a flat DC is too powerful. If you've got some kind of Cirque du Soleil going on with all the PCs tumbling everywhere and never getting hit with AoOs, then I would think Thicket of Blades is a pretty neat trump card.

If the PCs have gone full-hawg with ToB, they never use Tumble much, and you're looking for ways to challenge them, then go with Tumble trumps Thicket.

[MrNexx]

Simply saying "I would" does not make it clear that what your saying is a house rule.

On the contrary, it states that this is my interpretation. It doesn't reference rules, or say anything about what the books say... just what I (first person, singular) would do. If other people misread that, that's because they're not paying attention to language.

Someone else might say the same, and mean that they believed it to be the RAW interpretation. "I want to use bracers of armor for my monk. Can I do this by the rules?" "I would say yes."

Let's break it down.

I - First person singular pronoun. Indicates that one person is doing the action, and that person is the speaker.

would say - verb phrase, made up of a modal verb (would), indicating a condition upon the main verb (say). "Say", of course, is declined for the first person singular pronoun we have earlier in the sentence, indicating that the speaker would be the one saying it; He/she/it would say, not some other, yet unnamed entity.

yes - an affirmative, in this case indicating what the speaker believes he would rule in this situation.

Now, that answers the first question. The second question, in your example, goes unanswered. It could be argued that the second question is implicitly answered but, as you noted, the rules are unclear, so this can also be seen as an example of the speaker giving his own interpretation of the rules.

You will also note that I rarely simply post "I would say yes" or "I would say no"; I often comment subsequently, or even modify that statement with additional declarative (or interrogative) sentences. Furthermore, my voice is usually one amongst many, so anyone who is taking my statements as gospel, without reading the rest of the posts, likely already knows me and something of my play style.

Now, those of us who have come to know your style will generally understand what you mean, but you can't expect everyone to know that you prefer house rules as a matter of course.

I wouldn't say I prefer house rules as a matter of course; rather, its that I do not object to them when they are appropriate.

[Starbuck_II]

Someone else might say the same, and mean that they believed it to be the RAW interpretation. "I want to use bracers of armor for my monk. Can I do this by the rules?" "I would say yes."

Well, while off topic, the answer by the rules is yes. So his houserule in this situation is the actual rule.

[Curmudgeon]

You guys need to look at the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and in this case it becomes abundantly clear. (remember, those two clauses exist even in modern, high courts, and for good reason.)

You must be a great lawyer, daggaz, because this reasoning seems abundantly obscure to me.

If WotC were made up of lawyers or legislators who were conversant with conventions used in a court of law then your argument might hold water. But those conventions are foreign in the context of game rules disputes, and thus pretty much irrelevant. I'm very thankful that lawyers don't decide D&D rules questions.

[Bassetking]

I would interpret it as follows.

Thicket of Blades specifies that you can make an attack of opportunity against any opponent whom you threaten, whom also makes any form of motion. Since you do not threaten a tumbling opponent, Thicket of Blades does not apply.

[meat_shield]

I would interpret it as follows.

Thicket of Blades specifies that you can make an attack of opportunity against any opponent whom you threaten, whom also makes any form of motion. Since you do not threaten a tumbling opponent, Thicket of Blades does not apply.

Wrong, you still Threaten you just can't make an AoO..just like you still "Threaten" an opponent who has cover but you can't make an AoO..that's straight out of the PHB. Thicket > Tumble imo though stlil very unclear. What about movement provoking more then one AoO..IE if you move through 3 threatened squares for the same enemy can he take an AoO for each square? Slightly differenet way to look at thicket of blades.

[AtomicKitKat]

Wrong, you still Threaten you just can't make an AoO..just like you still "Threaten" an opponent who has cover but you can't make an AoO..that's straight out of the PHB. Thicket > Tumble imo though stlil very unclear. What about movement provoking more then one AoO..IE if you move through 3 threatened squares for the same enemy can he take an AoO for each square? Slightly differenet way to look at thicket of blades.

No. Because it's still one single action, which cannot provoke more than one AoO(alternatively, you may interpret it as one action cannot provoke the same AoO, in which case, Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit do stack).

[Indon]

I bet they meant for tumble to not work. However, I would allow it with an increased DC (maybe add the attackers AB to the DC).

I think they meant for tumble to still work, but I'd go with the same solution.

Who cares if it's a houserule? It's a good rule, and WotC, tasked only with clarifying the RAW, wouldn't bother to make anything interesting like it even if they did elaborate on the rule; they would just say yes or no, neither of which are particularly good rulings, as they either make the stance almost useless against tumbling opponents, or make tumble useless against a low-level stance.

[Kaelik]

Who cares if it's a houserule? It's a good rule, and WotC, tasked only with clarifying the RAW, wouldn't bother to make anything interesting like it even if they did elaborate on the rule;

No one cares if it's a houserule, but this forum is rife with people claiming that all their fixes are not houserules (I'm not getting into this specific instance, leave me out of it.) And so one poster was just making sure to qualify another's statement by making it clear that it was a houserule.

they would just say yes or no, neither of which are particularly good rulings, as they either make the stance almost useless against tumbling opponents, or make tumble useless against a low-level stance.

Except that both are perfectly good rulings since the point of tumbling is to avoid AoO from movement, and the point of Thicket of Blades is to force AoO from movement. As such either ruling allows one of the mechanics to fulfill it's purpose.

I personally think that it can go either way, and so in my house the rule would be that Thicket of Blades negates tumbling, I'd do this because I consider taking a Crusader level or two feats as a greater investment then pumping tumble to the point you can beat the DC for whatever you want to do.

[Draz74]

I personally think that it can go either way, and so in my house the rule would be that Thicket of Blades negates tumbling, I'd do this because I consider taking a Crusader level or two feats as a greater investment then pumping tumble to the point you can beat the DC for whatever you want to do.

Totally agree with this comment. An earlier argument was that Tumble should probably trump because Thicket of Blades is a low-level, low-investment ability ... but I personally think a flat, nonscaling () DC 15 skill check is a lower investment to beat than a 3rd-Level Stance (esp. in a Discipline that only one class has easy access to).

I agree that it needs an FAQ entry, though, to avoid ambiguity.

I like the Tumble house rules on The Alexandrian.

[Nowhere Girl]

Since both rules are effectively absolute, and it's therefore impossible to make a decision that isn't just as wrong as it is right, you could always settle it by just flipping a coin each time the situation comes up, then going with what the coin says for that round.

^
|
|

IN CASE IT ISN'T ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, THIS IS A HOUSERULE (a silly one at that)! NOT OFFICIAL!!!

There. Was that clear enough to satisfy? I won't get berated about not specifying in the simplest, most hand-holding language possible?