PDA

View Full Version : Is 3.5 Tumble broken?



Twilight Jack
2009-07-13, 12:20 PM
This is a problem I've been thinking about casually for some time. Since all Tumble checks to avoid AoO are set against a flat DC, doesn't a decent Tumble score completely invalidate much of the danger of an opponent with abilities based upon reach?

Now I realize that there are certain feats and maneuvers that manage to circumvent this, but since feats are far more precious than skill points and maneuvers are specific mechanic for a small handful of melee classes, this seems to me to only highlight the base problem. It would seem to me that a more reasonable system might be to scale the base DC of Tumble checks off the BAB of the opponent whose AoO you're looking to circumvent.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

PurinaDragonCho
2009-07-13, 12:23 PM
As DM, if you feel a player is abusing tumble, just put several enemies on the board, each no more than 10 feet apart. Or limit the battlefield in some other way to prevent tumbling. Why is it so vital that badguys get AoOs, anyway?

I personally don't see the problem. Besides, if the PCs can do it, NPCs can do it, too.

Irreverent Fool
2009-07-13, 12:27 PM
Apparently any combat tactic other than 'walk up to any enemy and hit it in the face until one of your dies' is 'broken'.

obnoxious
sig

valadil
2009-07-13, 12:29 PM
We use a fix for tumble in one of my games that leaves it powerful, but not broken. I'm not sure if this game from a book (it may even be the correct way of playing for all I know) or someone made it up.

Each AoO that you're trying to avoid requires a roll. Each roll after the first increases the DCs of later rolls by 2. So to avoid attacks from 3 opponents you'd need tumble checks at DC 15, 17, and 19. This worked well at the power level we were playing with, but you could probably justify increasing the DC modifier to 4 for each check. I think we were playing where a 1 was an automatic fail, so increasing the number of rolls instead of just the DC helped a lot.

ericgrau
2009-07-13, 12:32 PM
Removing all AoO's doesn't make someone broken, if they pay skill points for it (and more if they're the wrong class). Most skills are actually like this - minor benefit with easy success - but most groups focus excessively on spot/hide, or DMs set the wrong DCs, or etc. Nerfing them is just a character-life-risking slap to the face to something that really doesn't need nerfing.

Myrmex
2009-07-13, 12:34 PM
Tumble is quite broken. It's worth putting cross-class points in it, as long as you aren't going to be wearing heavy armor. My wizards tumble, my wildshaped druids tumble, everything I play tumbles. There's absolutely no reason not to invest in "I win" skills, is there?

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 12:39 PM
Tumble is a powerful skill, yes, but with splatbooks in the mix, it becomes less omnipotent (at trivializing one combat build entirely in AoO-focused builds), mostly thanks to the existence of Thicket of Blades-stance in Tome of Battle and the whole Knight-class.

That said, yeah, it'd make sense to alter Tumble a bit to match the difficulty to opponent's offensive capabilities (harder to avoid AoOs from a skilled warrior than a Wizard holding a staff). In fact, I seem to recall seeing just such a fix in Unearthed Arcana, but I cannot seem to be able to locate it right now.

Dogmantra
2009-07-13, 12:45 PM
That said, yeah, it'd make sense to alter Tumble a bit to match the difficulty to opponent's offensive capabilities (harder to avoid AoOs from a skilled warrior than a Wizard holding a staff).
I read a quick fix on these boards once: Tumble DC to avoid an AoO is 10 + BAB of threatener.

Ent
2009-07-13, 12:48 PM
I read a quick fix on these boards once: Tumble DC to avoid an AoO is 10 + BAB of threatener.

Then Tumble becomes a required investment forever.

adanedhel9
2009-07-13, 12:50 PM
Each AoO that you're trying to avoid requires a roll. Each roll after the first increases the DCs of later rolls by 2. So to avoid attacks from 3 opponents you'd need tumble checks at DC 15, 17, and 19.

This is RAW.

That being said, Tumble is pretty easy to get high enough where even the increasing DCs don't matter that much. I'm currently playing a mobile fighter type; at 5th level his Tumble is +15 - enough that, despite constantly dancing around busy battle fields, I think he's only taken 1 attack of opportunity (and that was a level or two ago).

I've heard of a fix where the DC to Tumble past any particular opponent is 10 + the opponent's BAB, with the DCs increasing over multiple attempts as above. I've never seen it in play (Tumble just hasn't been that big of an issue for my groups), but I like it in theory.


Then Tumble becomes a required investment forever.

Is that a bad thing?

Person_Man
2009-07-13, 12:58 PM
Let's say that you do change how Tumble scales. For example, you make the DC for avoiding an AoO = 10 + BAB of the enemy.

This has no impact on the DM or AoO using PCs. The DM was always free to improve or nerf his encounters, and thus improve or nerf the AoO using PCs relative power. For example, I'm a DM designing an encounter for a Trip build Fighter player and three other PCs. If the Fighter is too strong compared the other PCs (a rare event), then I can easily raise the Tumble Skills of my enemies, or give them ranged weapons, or have them use spells, or psionics, or incarnum, etc. If the Fighter is too weak, I can easily lower the Tumble Skills of my enemies, lower their Str, have them mook rush him, or have them make morale checks when X number of them die, etc.

But the rules change does have an impact on Skill Monkey PCs (already the weakest in many cases), in that it forces them to spend more Skill Points to do exactly the same thing they could do before you changed the rule.

So really you're not accomplishing anything except slightly nerfing the Rogue et al PCs. And I don't see a good reason to do that.

Myrmex
2009-07-13, 01:01 PM
Let's say that you do change how Tumble scales. For example, you make the DC for avoiding an AoO = 10 + BAB of the enemy.

This has no impact on the DM or AoO using PCs. The DM was always free to improve or nerf his encounters, and thus improve or nerf the AoO using PCs relative power. For example, I'm a DM designing an encounter for a Trip build Fighter player and three other PCs. If the Fighter is too strong compared the other PCs (a rare event), then I can easily raise the Tumble Skills of my enemies, or give them ranged weapons, or have them use spells, or psionics, or incarnum, etc. If the Fighter is too weak, I can easily lower the Tumble Skills of my enemies, lower their Str, have them mook rush him, or have them make morale checks when X number of them die, etc.

But the rules change does have an impact on Skill Monkey PCs (already the weakest in many cases), in that it forces them to spend more Skill Points to do exactly the same thing they could do before you changed the rule.

So really you're not accomplishing anything except slightly nerfing the Rogue et al PCs. And I don't see a good reason to do that.

Tumble's best for casters, esp. at low to mid levels, as it gives them a chance to move out of threatened squares with no penalty before attempting a concentration check to cast their spells.

ericgrau
2009-07-13, 01:08 PM
Or you could put ranks in concentration. Low to mid level cross-class skills are harder to succeed on.

And I'd agree that skillmonkeys really don't need nerfing. They tend to be weak already, especially since a lot of DMs tend to raise DCs on other skills already.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-13, 01:09 PM
Tumble is generally a skill that medium-to-weak characters have. They don't have much in the way of BAB or hit points. So is it a big deal that they can hold onto some of those hit points on the way to put their middling BAB to the test? I don't think so.

Tumble isn't broken. Leave it alone.

Telonius
2009-07-13, 01:15 PM
Tell me why I'm wrong.

Elder Air Elemental. Size: Huge, CR 11, HD=20, BAB = 20. (Outsider BAB = HD).
10-headed Cryohydra. Size: Huge, CR 11, HD=10, BAB = 10 (Magical Beast BAB = HD).
Dread Wraith. Size: Large, CR 11, HD=16, BAB = 8 (Undead BAB = 1/2 HD)
Retriever. Size: Huge, CR 11, HD=10, BAB = 7 (Construct BAB = 3/4 HD)

Here you have a creature (the Retriever) that is supposed to be designed for fetching things that are trying to run away, that is less able to connect on something tumbling past him than a Dread Wraith (which has less reach than it does) or a Cryohydra. The Cryohydra might make a little more sense, with ten heads and all for a character to dodge past. But an Air Elemental being almost three times as tough as a Retriever?

Person_Man
2009-07-13, 01:20 PM
Tumble's best for casters, esp. at low to mid levels, as it gives them a chance to move out of threatened squares with no penalty before attempting a concentration check to cast their spells.

I'll concede that. But that's a pretty good argument for abolishing cross class Skills (or at least restricting Tumble and UMD by making them class abilities instead of Skills), not for changing Tumble.

But even if a DM did choose to re-jigger the Tumble DC, it just makes Wizards spend 2 Skill points per level forever on Tumble (and maybe invest in a Tumble boosting magic item) instead of two points per level for 10 levels or so. That's not really much of a change.

Sissyphus
2009-07-13, 01:22 PM
you could make tumble trained, an untrained tumbler uses 10 +bab while a trained tumbler uses the standard rules for tumbling, so that people who have it aren't really affected, people moving to get it (cross class) have to take a harder tumble check

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 01:22 PM
Tumble is generally a skill that medium-to-weak characters have. They don't have much in the way of BAB or hit points. So is it a big deal that they can hold onto some of those hit points on the way to put their middling BAB to the test? I don't think so.

Tumble isn't broken. Leave it alone.

10+BAB checks are just as easy for a Rogue to make consistently as straight DC 15. I don't see the issue here. How often have you actually failed a Tumble-check in actual play? 'cause the only ones I remember failing are "jumping over the opponent"-ones, and those only 'cause I tried 'em too early, too often.

Even a level 2 Rogue can easily have 5 ranks, +2 synergy and +4 Dex for +11 Tumble. As his Dex keeps growing, he'll reach a point where he'll never fail on even natural 1s, and if he picks up Skill Mastery for Tumble, he can safely friggin' full-speed Tumble against anything but überhigh-BAB creatures.

Deepblue706
2009-07-13, 01:24 PM
Tumble is absolutely fine. It's a DC 15 check to move at half speed and avoid AoOs, and DC 25 to do that through an enemy's occupied space. If there's dense undergrowth, or you're in a natural cavern, these checks get higher. Also, you get a -10 for accelerated Tumbling.

And then there's DC 35 for a Free Stand. And you can also eliminate some falling damage. Wow.

No way is it broken.

Myrmex
2009-07-13, 01:26 PM
I'll concede that. But that's a pretty good argument for abolishing cross class Skills (or at least restricting Tumble and UMD by making them class abilities instead of Skills), not for changing Tumble.

But even if a DM did choose to re-jigger the Tumble DC, it just makes Wizards spend 2 Skill points per level forever on Tumble (and maybe invest in a Tumble boosting magic item) instead of two points per level for 10 levels or so. That's not really much of a change.

Making Tumble & UMD class abilities would probably be better, or at least make it so it's rogue only, like UMD was in 3.0 for bards & rogues.

Rhawin
2009-07-13, 01:29 PM
Melee types avoiding AoOs while closing in with giant monsters is almost a fix. Tumble is only a problem when casters use it, really.

Quietus
2009-07-13, 01:33 PM
If you feel Tumble is too powerful and is breaking your game, you could very easily make it into an opposed roll. Essentially, they roll Tumble when they move; That becomes their new AC, which the attack rolls now need to hit. So your average level 2 Rogue, with 16 dex and +1 studded leather, will have AC 17 normally. With 5 ranks in Tumble and 5 ranks in Jump, they've got a Tumble mod of +10 (5 ranks, 2 synergy, 3 dex). They've got an AC of 17 normally, but can choose to move at half speed, effectively raising their AC any time they roll better than a 7.

Now, instead of having to hit a flat DC of 15, their Tumble roll (let's say they roll a 10, for a total of 20) becomes their AC for that turn, for the purpose of attacks of opportunity. So the Fighter they're trying to flank MIGHT still hit them; He just has to roll against a higher effective AC.

Note that this also means Mobility doesn't become totally pointless (though it's still a poor feat); It would mean that even when you don't roll well on your Tumble check, your AC is 4 higher against AoO's.

only1doug
2009-07-13, 01:34 PM
This is a problem I've been thinking about casually for some time. Since all Tumble checks to avoid AoO are set against a flat DC, doesn't a decent Tumble score completely invalidate much of the danger of an opponent with abilities based upon reach?

Now I realize that there are certain feats and maneuvers that manage to circumvent this, but since feats are far more precious than skill points and maneuvers are specific mechanic for a small handful of melee classes, this seems to me to only highlight the base problem. It would seem to me that a more reasonable system might be to scale the base DC of Tumble checks off the BAB of the opponent whose AoO you're looking to circumvent.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

My GM is using exactly that houserule, which makes tumble a skill that you either maximise or ignore... I'm not sure that it improves the flavour of the game but thats the houserule we are using.

-Cor-
2009-07-13, 01:41 PM
I'm one of those people who's always looking for a story or character reason for something to exist, but nope... I don't think it's broken.

Sure... almost every character has it, whether it makes sense for them to or not. (80 year old Human Wizard... yup... he's got tumble... despite the arthritis.)

But anyway... why not? I mean... these are guys that are in a constant state of fighting monsters, people, etc... I think at some point they would've learned how to dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge in some way.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-13, 01:41 PM
10+BAB checks are just as easy for a Rogue to make consistently as straight DC 15. You misunderstand me. I wasn't proposing to change how Tumble checks work. But Rogues have good skills, middling BAB and hit points, and weak AC. They can use Tumble to get to a place where they can test their BAB against enemy ACs. Against someone with good AC, medium BAB will miss a lot. Then they get to put their weak AC to the test on the counterattack. So is it a big deal that they might keep all their hit points up until they reach their intended target? No.

Deepblue706
2009-07-13, 01:42 PM
But anyway... why not? I mean... these are guys that are in a constant state of fighting monsters, people, etc... I think at some point they would've learned how to dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge in some way.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Tumble is almost exclusively Cartwheels.

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 01:54 PM
You misunderstand me. I wasn't proposing to change how Tumble checks work. But Rogues have good skills, middling BAB and hit points, and weak AC. They can use Tumble to get to a place where they can test their BAB against enemy ACs. Against someone with good AC, medium BAB will miss a lot. Then they get to put their weak AC to the test on the counterattack. So is it a big deal that they might keep all their hit points up until they reach their intended target? No.

But the change doesn't change anything for them. Rogues will still be making their checks because of it being a class skill, their Dex-focus and their skill points affording them the ranks along with the later Skill Mastery.

Other characters though, especially ones cross-classing the skill, will at least have to contend with the IDEA of a possible failure on the check with the change; as it stands, just about anyone investing ranks in Tumble automakes the checks meaning the only characters AoOs are relevant to are heavily armored melee types.


As it stands, you just need ~5 ranks in Tumble with the synergies and you're done - you don't need to put any more ranks there ever. Why shouldn't a character investing more in Tumble be rewarded for it?

snoopy13a
2009-07-13, 02:16 PM
As it stands, you just need ~5 ranks in Tumble with the synergies and you're done - you don't need to put any more ranks there ever. Why shouldn't a character investing more in Tumble be rewarded for it?

Tumble usually results in 1/2 speed. A stereotypical halfling rogue only can move 10' while tumbling. If you have more ranks in Tumble, you can take a -10 penalty and tumble at full speed.

Indon
2009-07-13, 02:45 PM
If you feel Tumble is too powerful and is breaking your game, you could very easily make it into an opposed roll. Essentially, they roll Tumble when they move; That becomes their new AC, which the attack rolls now need to hit.

I like this houserule.

Telonius
2009-07-13, 02:49 PM
All good points, but look at the numbers I gave above. If you key the check to BAB alone, you end up in a situation where a CR 11 monster is harder to tumble around than an Enlarged level 19 Fighter with a spiked chain and feats out the wazoo. To take an even more extreme example, a CR 10 Colossal animated object would have the check based off of BAB 24. The Fighter wouldn't reach that until Epic.

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 02:53 PM
All good points, but look at the numbers I gave above. If you key the check to BAB alone, you end up in a situation where a CR 11 monster is harder to tumble around than an Enlarged level 19 Fighter with a spiked chain and feats out the wazoo. To take an even more extreme example, a CR 10 Colossal animated object would have the check based off of BAB 24. The Fighter wouldn't reach that until Epic.

You could apply size modifiers (let's face it, disrupting someone's movement is harder if you're clumsy). Then the same Colossal object would have -8 to the DC making it equivalent of 16 BAB - not easy, but not impossible either (a level 10 Rogue with +8 Dex, 13 ranks in Tumble and +2 synergies full moves that with Skill Mastery given +3 from a magical source, such as that Vest of Tumbling, and ½ moves that trivially). That'd make life better overall as it tends to be Colossal things that have vastly inflated BAB due to HD.

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-13, 02:55 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure Tumble is almost exclusively Cartwheels.

I don't know why, but that just made me chuckle.

Here, have a cookie.

((Although I'm pretty sure backflips, handstands and somersaults are involved, too.))

Twilight Jack
2009-07-13, 03:09 PM
Tumble usually results in 1/2 speed. A stereotypical halfling rogue only can move 10' while tumbling. If you have more ranks in Tumble, you can take a -10 penalty and tumble at full speed.

Yes, but it isn't the halfling rogue that concerns me. It's the swashbuckling Warblade in an Absolute Steel Stance with boots of striding and springing. Warblade 9 means 12 ranks in Tumble, with a +2 from Jump synergy, a +3 to +5 from Dex, and a competence bonus from any one of a dozen sources. That's up to a +24 Tumble check for autosuccess at his full movement speed of 50'. Congratulations, you will never take an attack of opportunity again, and it's not even really the point of the build.

It just seems that a single juked-out skill removes an entire tactical consideration from play.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-13, 03:10 PM
You could apply size modifiers (let's face it, disrupting someone's movement is harder if you're clumsy). Then the same Colossal object would have -8 to the DC making it equivalent of 16 BAB - not easy, but not impossible either (a level 10 Rogue with +8 Dex, 13 ranks in Tumble and +2 synergies full moves that with Skill Mastery given +3 from a magical source, such as that Vest of Tumbling, and ½ moves that trivially). That'd make life better overall as it tends to be Colossal things that have vastly inflated BAB due to HD.

That seems like a reasonable way to avoid the problem Telonius rightly points out.

PurinaDragonCho
2009-07-13, 03:50 PM
It just seems that a single juked-out skill removes an entire tactical consideration from play.

I keep reading this thread, thinking maybe I'll understand why this is a problem, but I don't get it. 12 skill points plus a magic item or two seems a reasonable investment to remove one tactic from working against you. Don't forget the opportunity costs here - if you wear boots of striding and springing, you also give up the possibility of wearing another pair of boots.

Incidentally, 5 ranks in balance plus a 600 gp pair of boots from the MIC will make you effectively trip-proof. Cool, but not amazing.

But even so, I've never built a tumble-oriented character. Maybe that's why it doesn't seem broken to me. There are always things I'd rather do with those 12 skill points.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-13, 03:52 PM
Yes, but it isn't the halfling rogue that concerns me. It's the swashbuckling Warblade in an Absolute Steel Stance with boots of striding and springing. Warblade 9 means 12 ranks in Tumble, with a +2 from Jump synergy, a +3 to +5 from Dex, and a competence bonus from any one of a dozen sources. That's up to a +24 Tumble check for autosuccess at his full movement speed of 50'. Congratulations, you will never take an attack of opportunity again, and it's not even really the point of the build.

It just seems that a single juked-out skill removes an entire tactical consideration from play.

Giacomo uses tumble on all of his monks, yet he was the first to die in the Test of Spite.

Telonius
2009-07-13, 03:55 PM
It's definitely not unreasonable for Monks. They're the ones who most benefit from it - high speed makes the half-speed tumbles not hurt as much, and one role they play fairly well is to be The Flanking Buddy That Doesn't Die for the Rogue.

quick_comment
2009-07-13, 03:57 PM
The ELH I think has variant tumble rules where each person who threatens you as you tumble gets a reflex save with DC = tumble check to take an AoO anyway.

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 04:01 PM
The ELH I think has variant tumble rules where each person who threatens you as you tumble gets a reflex save with DC = tumble check to take an AoO anyway.

That's actually really good especially given how Reflex is normally the safest save to dump; with that rule even melee types (especially melee types) have a reason to want Reflex, and it's the quickest guys who are best able to AoO Tumblers.

The only problem is that skill checks are ridiculously easier to pump than saves...

Gnomo
2009-07-13, 04:28 PM
If you feel Tumble is too powerful and is breaking your game, you could very easily make it into an opposed roll. Essentially, they roll Tumble when they move; That becomes their new AC, which the attack rolls now need to hit.
You do realize that this is harder onto the tumbler than a DC of 10 + BAB.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-13, 04:45 PM
It's definitely not unreasonable for Monks. They're the ones who most benefit from it - high speed makes the half-speed tumbles not hurt as much, and one role they play fairly well is to be The Flanking Buddy That Doesn't Die for the Rogue.

Heh. He died before our rogue could do much flanking.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-13, 04:56 PM
I keep reading this thread, thinking maybe I'll understand why this is a problem, but I don't get it. 12 skill points plus a magic item or two seems a reasonable investment to remove one tactic from working against you. Don't forget the opportunity costs here - if you wear boots of striding and springing, you also give up the possibility of wearing another pair of boots.

Incidentally, 5 ranks in balance plus a 600 gp pair of boots from the MIC will make you effectively trip-proof. Cool, but not amazing.

But even so, I've never built a tumble-oriented character. Maybe that's why it doesn't seem broken to me. There are always things I'd rather do with those 12 skill points.

You know, I try to keep reminding myself that it's just one skill. And yet it still bugs me that it's no more difficult to tumble past the World's Greatest SwordsmanTM than it is to get past a drunken orc with a depth perception deficiency.

Even so, I recognize that I'm probably overreacting in the face of much greater rules abuses. Hence the tone of my initial post.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-13, 04:58 PM
You know, I try to keep reminding myself that it's just one skill. And yet it still bugs me that it's no more difficult to tumble past the World's Greatest SwordsmanTM than it is to get past a drunken orc with a depth perception deficiency.


The World's Greatest Swordsman is a ToB class and probably has Thicket of Blades.

Callista
2009-07-13, 05:17 PM
No, not broken.

I annoyed my DM by using Tumble to get my rogue into position for sneak attacks, so the DM started using the same strategy for the opponents. At which point I broke out the Grease and caltrops. Things got tougher for the rogue after that, but the DM stopped complaining about Tumble, and I still hadn't brought out the shrunk boulders. A magic user would've had even more options to negate Tumble than just my UMD-using rogue--the Wall spells, webs, any number of other battlefield control strategies, etc. and a DM can simply create terrain that makes Tumble difficult.

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 05:19 PM
It's definitely not unreasonable for Monks. They're the ones who most benefit from it - high speed makes the half-speed tumbles not hurt as much, and one role they play fairly well is to be The Flanking Buddy That Doesn't Die for the Rogue.

Actually, their defenses are mostly geared against Magic - they are pretty bad at defending against oldschool attacks due to their low HD, low composite AC and lack of ability to focus on Con. Melee is easily their biggest weakness (well, that and traditional attacks in general; ranged ones work just as well), especially since buffing their AC costs fortunes.

So that's the one place they don't want to be at. Ranged Monk or Caster Monk would make for a more durable packet. The role of a Flanking Buddy though sees them getting full attacked by a Giant/Dragon/Barbarian/Your Generic Imposing Melee Beast and getting ripped to shreds.

shadow_archmagi
2009-07-13, 05:32 PM
I'm still not seeing why this is broken. "Gee, with a significant investment of skillpoints, you can become immune to a single tactic that a small percentage of some enemies may use!"

I dunno, do a lot of GMs depend on complicated formations, or AoO-builds? It seems to me that only like one encounter in three or four is really going to be made much easier by Tumble.

In the meantime, letting the rogue feel badass because he can backflip crazily doesn't seem like much of a crime.

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 05:56 PM
I'm still not seeing why this is broken. "Gee, with a significant investment of skillpoints, you can become immune to a single tactic that a small percentage of some enemies may use!"

I dunno, do a lot of GMs depend on complicated formations, or AoO-builds? It seems to me that only like one encounter in three or four is really going to be made much easier by Tumble.

In the meantime, letting the rogue feel badass because he can backflip crazily doesn't seem like much of a crime.

The problem is the set DC which means extra ranks in Tumble are mostly useless and that regardless of whether Tumble is in class or not, you only need a few ranks to never fail checks.

Again, making the checks harder wouldn't make Rogues fail them because they can trivially get to numbers that allow passing even high ones. It does, however, make having ~5 ranks in Tumble not-an-auto-get-out-of-the-AoOs-for-free card against more skilled opponents (while still working fine against mooks). So yeah, making Tumble as a class skills more special is actually a boost to Rogue-types, not a nerf. That's what we're after here.

J.Gellert
2009-07-13, 06:15 PM
Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity for moving is a trivial thing, a small part of the game, and definitely doesn't break anything. There's far, far worse (worse as in, really broken) things out there.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-13, 06:19 PM
But the change doesn't change anything for them. You keep going on about "the change". I propose no change; just use the RAW. I only maintain that the classes that get to Tumble have lots of other vulnerabilities, so taking anything away from them is a bad idea. Even if you'll only be taking away from their capabilities at lower levels, it's still a bad idea.

As it stands, you just need ~5 ranks in Tumble with the synergies and you're done - you don't need to put any more ranks there ever. That's just bunk. Firstly, you Tumble at only half speed at that low level, which means severely limited target opportunities. Secondly, you can't go through enemies without a much higher check. Being able to get to flanking position when enemies span a corridor or other narrow passageway is a huge improvement. And then there's the Sprinting Tumble, allowing you to use the skill while running; and with a few more ranks you can also run across difficult terrain. There are many reasons to keep investing in the skill. Nobody who's serious about tactical options stops at a mere 5 ranks in Tumble.

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 06:30 PM
You keep going on about "the change". I propose no change; just use the RAW. I only maintain that the classes that get to Tumble have lots of other vulnerabilities, so taking anything away from them is a bad idea. Even if you'll only be taking away from their capabilities at lower levels, it's still a bad idea.

Yeah, and I'm suggesting a change, hence analysing its effects on the characters and the issues people are bringing up with the change. 'cause a flat DC 15 isn't sensible; a skilled opponent should be harder to Tumble vs. than an unskilled one. It's not about brokenness (although making Tumble reward focus wouldn't hurt), it's about common sense.

And all you bring up about Tumble is all fine and dandy, but much of the time you're just fine with Tumble to cover the threatened square unless extremely pressed for movement. And mostly you use Tumble to avoid AoOs; all the other abilities are secondary and more of a nice bonus than the reason to pick Tumble. Besides, nobody is suggesting changing the other uses, just making Tumble to avoid AoOs a bit more sensible.

I'm trying to see your side of the story, but I just can't; do you truly think Rogues suddenly would lose the ability to avoid AoOs with if changing this or something?

shadow_archmagi
2009-07-13, 06:31 PM
As a caster, I always preferred to just take a five foot step. BOOM. No AoOs for spellcasting, because my DM never threw spearmen at me.

As a rogue, if they can't flank, they're losing their only class feature.

As a fighter, they should be between the caster and the ogre, not behind the ogre.

Darrin
2009-07-13, 06:46 PM
Yes, but it isn't the halfling rogue that concerns me. It's the swashbuckling Warblade in an Absolute Steel Stance with boots of striding and springing. Warblade 9 means 12 ranks in Tumble, with a +2 from Jump synergy, a +3 to +5 from Dex, and a competence bonus from any one of a dozen sources. That's up to a +24 Tumble check for autosuccess at his full movement speed of 50'. Congratulations, you will never take an attack of opportunity again, and it's not even really the point of the build.


Not just Warblades, either. With the Skilled City Dweller ACF from the Cityscape Web Enhancement, any base class with Ride as a class skill can swap it for Tumble. This includes all of the basic melee classes: Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger.

Then again... a skill that the basic melee classes can put points in that actually improves their combat abilities? They could really use that! I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing, other than it dims the spotlight a bit on the skillmonkey classes.

Callista
2009-07-13, 10:55 PM
You can still critically fail your check. Plus, you're talking about a build specifically made for tumbling, which is kind of underpowered because there are a lot more powerful things out there that you could focus on. Sure, they can avoid AoOs, but are they going to do any more damage with that ability than the average character without it? We don't get annoyed at paladins for being immune to fear attacks (including Intimidate checks); we don't get annoyed that elves can't be put to sleep, or that Warforged or Necropolitans are immune to a whole bucketful of stuff. Why is it that Tumble should b any different?

quick_comment
2009-07-13, 11:01 PM
You can still critically fail your check.

No you cant, skill checks dont do anything special on 1s or 20s.

Eldariel
2009-07-13, 11:02 PM
You can still critically fail your check.

I assume you're talking about rolling 1? 'cause rolling 1 on a skill check is no more special than rolling 2, 3, 10 or 20. Every number is simply added to your skill ranks and see what happens; skill checks (with the specific exception of Use Magic Device that's spelled out in the skill description) don't have critical success and failure. In fact, those are pretty much limited to attack rolls and saves; stat checks and such rarely have anything special happen on 1 or 20.

The Glyphstone
2009-07-13, 11:16 PM
A\

As a fighter, they should be between the caster and the ogre, not behind the ogre.

Ironically, nothing stops the ogre from then Tumbling past the fighter, assuming there's space for him to move. Granted, not a great deal of ogres will have ranks in Tumble, but it's a bit odd to think that even a Colossal monster could Tumble right past a Medium opponent without any risk of taking a hit.

Myrmex
2009-07-13, 11:31 PM
I'm still not seeing why this is broken. "Gee, with a significant investment of skillpoints, you can become immune to a single tactic that a small percentage of some enemies may use!"

It's not that significant an investment, though. You only need to put 5 or so points towards it to get it to work most of the time. You get another 5 from dex (at least), 2 from synergy, and 2 from your masterwork tumbling tool, 2 from any number of competence bonuses, for a total of +11. You only need to roll a 4 or higher to get around.

Irreverent Fool
2009-07-13, 11:47 PM
Changing tumble will change nothing. Characters who are capable of investing enough in it for it to remain useful will do so and continue to gain its benefits or they may find a more efficient place to put those skillpoints and never use tumble again, whereas characters who did not use tumble before will never consider using it.

Attacks of opportunity really aren't that big a deal. If you must change it, I do hope that you give any characters who are bothering you with it a chance to move the points to something else.

obnoxious
sig

Myrmex
2009-07-13, 11:48 PM
Attacks of opportunity really aren't that big a deal.

You must have a very nice DM.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-07-13, 11:53 PM
I don't think that tumble is broken to the extent that diplomacy is. However, I do think it should not have a flat DC. It seems too easy to reach an auto-succeed level with it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-14, 12:14 AM
You must have a very nice DM.Saph is currently DMing me in a power-check on these forums, and I am having no real issues with AoOs even when I fail my Tumble checks(and yes, even using standard rules it's possible to fail).

Generally, in my experience, the extra attack is annoying, but not deadly. They still have to beat AC, and unless the opponent is a charger, the damage isn't terrible. Yeah, you'd rather avoid it, but it doesn't make a huge difference.

Seracain
2009-07-14, 12:22 AM
What if you set the dc at 15 + 1/2Bab - size modifier. That seems it would effect cross-class tumbling far more than class, while giving the feel that a trained opponent is harder to ignore.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 12:32 AM
The World's Greatest Swordsman is a ToB class and probably has Thicket of Blades.

No, the World's Greatest Swordsman is a Warblade and probably doesn't have any Devoted Spirit stances. :smallwink:

McBish
2009-07-14, 12:45 AM
It's not that significant an investment, though. You only need to put 5 or so points towards it to get it to work most of the time. You get another 5 from dex (at least), 2 from synergy, and 2 from your masterwork tumbling tool, 2 from any number of competence bonuses, for a total of +11. You only need to roll a 4 or higher to get around.


What exactly would tumbling tools consist of? I am fairly sure those don't exist. If they do, well then hot dog, that is ridiculous.

Seracain
2009-07-14, 12:55 AM
What exactly would tumbling tools consist of? I am fairly sure those don't exist. If they do, well then hot dog, that is ridiculous.

My guess is a flexible body suit or light flexible shoes, aka like a gymnast wears. Whether they'd still work in armour, or make the local townsfolk point and laugh is, of course, another matter. :smallwink:

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 01:00 AM
What exactly would tumbling tools consist of? I am fairly sure those don't exist. If they do, well then hot dog, that is ridiculous.

Moon Boots, my friend. Moon. Boots.

Fishy
2009-07-14, 01:04 AM
This is a problem I've been thinking about casually for some time. Since Paper always beats Rock, doesn't picking Paper completely invalidate much of the danger of an opponent who chooses Rock?

Now I realize that picking Scissors will manage to circumvent this, but since you only get to pick once and have to choose blindly, this seems to me to only highlight the base problem. It would seem to me that a more reasonable system might be to have Paper beat Rock at only a 50/50 chance, tops.

I know that's not a fair representation of your argument, but I thought it was funny.

More seriously, though, yes an investment in Tumble does negate the tactical option of AoOs, but I don't think that's inherently a problem. It's not the only or worst place it occurs in D&D, either- Tumble isn't as good against AoOs as Wind Wall is against archers or Levitation is against tripping.

Myrmex
2009-07-14, 01:15 AM
What exactly would tumbling tools consist of? I am fairly sure those don't exist. If they do, well then hot dog, that is ridiculous.

Kneepads, shoulderpads and other padding, and specially constructed garments to keep loose ends from tripping you up or letting the enemy grab one.


Saph is currently DMing me in a power-check on these forums, and I am having no real issues with AoOs even when I fail my Tumble checks(and yes, even using standard rules it's possible to fail).

Generally, in my experience, the extra attack is annoying, but not deadly. They still have to beat AC, and unless the opponent is a charger, the damage isn't terrible. Yeah, you'd rather avoid it, but it doesn't make a huge difference.

What're you playing (HP, level, AC, opponent types)?

My gaming group's DMs tends to prefer using humanoids, monstrous humanoids and giants with class levels as the bulk of opponents. Ogres with polearms are a real bitch, especially with a crusader or cleric leading them.

Seracain
2009-07-14, 01:16 AM
I think it's less a problem of balance and more one of feel. It seems like a more skilled opponent should be harder to avoid than a peasant with a pitchfork. At least to me it does.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 01:25 AM
I think it's less a problem of balance and more one of feel. It seems like a more skilled opponent should be harder to avoid than a peasant with a pitchfork. At least to me it does.

I couldn't agree more. Also, it seems to me that a part of the design philosophy of 3.5 is that Feats and class features should generally have more mechanical benefit than any one skill. So I look at a crappy Feat like Mobility and realize that I can get a better benefit from a middling Tumble score, and I think that there's something wrong. Maybe it wouldn't bother me so much if Mobility were actually worth a damn, but as it stands Tumble just seems to effortlessly eliminate an entire set of tactical considerations from the game, when nothing else in Core does so without massive investments in Feats or the use of magic (which rightly circumvents any number of potential dangers).

Curmudgeon
2009-07-14, 01:47 AM
Also, it seems to me that a part of the design philosophy of 3.5 is that Feats and class features should generally have more mechanical benefit than any one skill. So I look at a crappy Feat like Mobility ... You're missing something critical to the design philosophy of 3.5 feats, Jack: intentionally weak prerequisite feats, of which Mobility is a prime example. Spring Attack is nifty, so it requires two weak feats (Dodge, Mobility) to get to it. Shadowdancer is niftier, so it requires those feats plus another one, and 23 skill ranks.

Mobility exists just to be filler. Of course Tumble is better!

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 02:22 AM
You're missing something critical to the design philosophy of 3.5 feats, Jack: intentionally weak prerequisite feats, of which Mobility is a prime example. Spring Attack is nifty, so it requires two weak feats (Dodge, Mobility) to get to it. Shadowdancer is niftier, so it requires those feats plus another one, and 23 skill ranks.

Mobility exists just to be filler. Of course Tumble is better!

I don't think I am missing anything, but only because the concept of prerequisite "filler" feats is applied in an incredibly haphazard manner so as to completely invalidate its potential as a balancing factor.

Believe me, your point is well taken, or rather it would be if the notion of completely crappy Feats being necessary to get to the good stuff were applied evenly across the board. As it is, you've got the Power Attack tree smacking the Dodge tree around like a redheaded stepchild. The opening feat of the PA tree is considered to be the cornerstone of 80% of viable melee builds, while Dodge and Mobility are the feats you take while you die a little inside because you need them to qualify for something else. Take Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, and you've got Spring Attack. Take Power Attack, Cleave, and Leap Attack, and you've got Power Attack, Cleave, and Leap Attack. In the one case, you've got a set of useful feats with serious synergy. In the other, you've thrown two feat slots down the toilet.

And once you realize that Spring Attack - for which you've euthanized two perfectly good feat slots - is replicated and surpassed by a 1st level Tiger Claw maneuver without any crappy prerequisite filler, you suddenly stop to take stock of the fact that there is no 1st level ToB maneuver that takes the place of Power Attack, because there isn't any need. Instead, there are scores of maneuvers that just make Power Attack even better.

So once again, we're left with Tumble, a skill that just serves to rub Mobility's face in its own offal.

Tell me the one about the design philosophy of prerequisite filler feats again. :smallsigh:

Killer Angel
2009-07-14, 04:13 AM
Tell me the one about the design philosophy of prerequisite filler feats again. :smallsigh:

Well, the design philosophy is good, it's the application that is awful.
I would not count ToB manoveurs, or anything not Core: as you said, the mistake is clearly visible staying in Core. ToB just widen the gap.
2 feat slots wasted to gain Spring attack? it could be fine, if only at least one filler feat were required for Power Attack.
The way they made the various feat trees, is horrible.

Tehnar
2009-07-14, 04:34 AM
I use this houserule:

If you make the tumble DC you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC vs AoO(s). If you beat the DC by 5, you gain a +6 bonus, if you beat the DC by 10 you gain a +8 bonus, etc. This bonus stacks with the bonus from mobility as normal.

So normal tumbling at half speed, a DC 15 nets you a +4 bonus to AC, a DC 20 a +6 bonus, etc

The drawback to this rule is that you can sometimes get hit (critical or a high to hit bonus). The benefit is that you are using up your opponents attacks of opportunity.

Another side benefit is that you don't have to pump the skill for a moderate bonus, but if you choose to you will gain a very significant bonus to your defense against AoOs.

quick_comment
2009-07-14, 07:24 AM
No, the World's Greatest Swordsman is a Warblade and probably doesn't have any Devoted Spirit stances. :smallwink:

No, the world's greatest swordsman has a 2 level crusader dip. It gets him more manevers known, gets him thicket of blades and gets him an extra 5 maneuvers readied with the crusader mechanic. Maybe he has a 1 level swordsage dip for shadow stride as well.

Telonius
2009-07-14, 09:37 AM
Actually, their defenses are mostly geared against Magic - they are pretty bad at defending against oldschool attacks due to their low HD, low composite AC and lack of ability to focus on Con. Melee is easily their biggest weakness (well, that and traditional attacks in general; ranged ones work just as well), especially since buffing their AC costs fortunes.

So that's the one place they don't want to be at. Ranged Monk or Caster Monk would make for a more durable packet. The role of a Flanking Buddy though sees them getting full attacked by a Giant/Dragon/Barbarian/Your Generic Imposing Melee Beast and getting ripped to shreds.

At least in my experience, most Rogues don't get up into melee with those things either - they focus on the secondary combatants. Even if they're trying to sneak attack the foe, if it's being played either intelligently or as an animal reacting to instinct, it will be attacking the thing that's doing the most damage to it (i.e. not the Monk).

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 09:52 AM
Don't forget Acrobatic Backstab. :)

Tetsubo 57
2009-07-14, 10:02 AM
Then Tumble becomes a required investment forever.

As it should. If your opponents continue to increase in skill and danger as you gain levels, it should get increasing difficult to 'trick' them with a tumble. It should not be equally easy to tumble past a CR 1 goblin as a CR 20 dragon.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 10:03 AM
No, the World's Greatest Swordsman is a Warblade and probably doesn't have any Devoted Spirit stances. :smallwink:

Or a Master of the Nine, which gets some Devoted Spirit.

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 10:50 AM
At least in my experience, most Rogues don't get up into melee with those things either - they focus on the secondary combatants. Even if they're trying to sneak attack the foe, if it's being played either intelligently or as an animal reacting to instinct, it will be attacking the thing that's doing the most damage to it (i.e. not the Monk).

But that's not really the Monk being hard to kill, just not being worth killing - much like a Commoner in the same role, really.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 10:57 AM
No, the world's greatest swordsman has a 2 level crusader dip. It gets him more manevers known, gets him thicket of blades and gets him an extra 5 maneuvers readied with the crusader mechanic. Maybe he has a 1 level swordsage dip for shadow stride as well.

And I wouldn't think he necessarily does, because all the flavor of a Crusader is tied up in the devotion to a specific cause. So, unless the World's Greatest Swordsman is also a religious or political zealot (which, I suppose, he could be . . .), he would never take levels in Crusader.

The fact that he'd need to dip into a class in which he likely has no business, in order to effectively frustrate the efforts of a medium-competent tumbler, is exactly the problem I'm talking about.


Or a Master of the Nine, which gets some Devoted Spirit.

Now Master of the Nine, I'd buy, but it once again highlights the issue with Tumble. Look at how many hoops the guy had to jump through in order to counter a tactic available to just about any mid-level character.

Telonius
2009-07-14, 11:14 AM
But that's not really the Monk being hard to kill, just not being worth killing - much like a Commoner in the same role, really.

The commoner has less mobility (less able to get into flanking position), no evasion and lower saves (in case of area effect), fewer skill points (and Tumble isn't a class skill anyway), and lower AC. If the Commoner tries to improve AC, they'll have to somehow pick up a Monk's Belt, or spend a feat to become proficient in armor (if they don't want their tumble check to plummet). Really, Monk is bad, but not Commoner-bad. It's even better than Samurai at flanking-buddy.

quick_comment
2009-07-14, 11:20 AM
And I wouldn't think he necessarily does, because all the flavor of a Crusader is tied up in the devotion to a specific cause. So, unless the World's Greatest Swordsman is also a religious or political zealot (which, I suppose, he could be . . .), he would never take levels in Crusader.

The fact that he'd need to dip into a class in which he likely has no business, in order to effectively frustrate the efforts of a medium-competent tumbler, is exactly the problem I'm talking about.



His cause could be elegant swordplay, or battle, or any idea or concept you want. He could also just take martial study and martial stance feats.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 11:26 AM
His cause could be elegant swordplay, or battle, or any idea or concept you want. He could also just take martial study and martial stance feats.

Ah, but what about the Second Greatest Swordsman in the world? Should he have to take that same two level dip or pair of feats, or should tumblers be able to pass through his space effortlessly?

See what I did there?

Blackfang108
2009-07-14, 01:21 PM
Ah, but what about the Second Greatest Swordsman in the world? Should he have to take that same two level dip or pair of feats, or should tumblers be able to pass through his space effortlessly?

See what I did there?

You mean restarted your inane, pointless, circular arguement that has no real merit?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 01:29 PM
Ah, but what about the Second Greatest Swordsman in the world? Should he have to take that same two level dip or pair of feats, or should tumblers be able to pass through his space effortlessly?

See what I did there?

You mean the Knight who doesn't dip ToB, but just denies opponents the ability to get past him?

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 01:52 PM
You mean restarted your inane, pointless, circular arguement that has no real merit?

Ooo, sweetie, no need to get testy. Have a cookie.

Let me break down my inane, pointless, and circular argument into tiny words for you.

According to the rules as written, a character with minor optimization in a single Core skill can effortlessly tumble past world-class melee combatants, unless the particular melee combatant past whom he is tumbling has selected a series of very specialized mechanical options for his build.

So when it is argued that the World's Greatest Swordsman has certainly selected those precise options, I must wonder whether the Second Greatest selected them too. And the Third Greatest, and so on. When a 2 level Crusader dip is one of the only answers to prevent being tumbled past by a mediocre acrobat, then there's a problem with the way the base skill is working.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 01:53 PM
You mean the Knight who doesn't dip ToB, but just denies opponents the ability to get past him?

And once again, we've posited a very specialized means to avoid being rendered irrelevant by a very simple Core tactic.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 01:56 PM
When a 2 level Crusader dip is one of the only answers to prevent being tumbled past by a mediocre acrobat, then there's a problem with the way the base skill is working.

Actually, since any fighter can have access to martial study feats, and given that fighters often have far more feats than they know what to do with...

Doc Roc
2009-07-14, 02:03 PM
As it stands, you just need ~5 ranks in Tumble with the synergies and you're done - you don't need to put any more ranks there ever. Why shouldn't a character investing more in Tumble be rewarded for it?

Because it's strange to try and give the really powerful non-caster classes any advantages based on their skill lists. This is a joke. I'm being sardonic.

Deepblue706
2009-07-14, 02:05 PM
Why does the World's Greatest Swordsman always have to be able to make an AoO, anyway? Maybe a successful Tumble just means "there isn't an opening", rather than "I failed to exploit that opening".

It's not like Tumble robs the opponent of an actual turn.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 02:06 PM
It just renders tactical movement a hollow, empty joke, a mockery of what it should be.

Or something.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 02:11 PM
Actually, since any fighter can have access to martial study feats, and given that fighters often have far more feats than they know what to do with...

I did say the crusader dip was one of the only ways. :smallwink:

The point I'm still caught up on is that you need either be a Knight or have the Thicket of Blades stance to stop a mediocre rogue from tumbling past you without skipping a beat.

The answer to the problem with tumbling shouldn't be that specialized techniques exist to stop it. Because the basic problem is that tumbling past an opponent is based upon a flat DC, regardless of the skill level of the opponent. A skilled melee combatant shouldn't be magically falling for this crap in the first place, unless the acrobat in question is exceptional.

I'm not against characters using Tumble to get past their opponents. Hell, I love it. I love the swashbuckling feel and the cinematic tradition it calls to mind.

What I'm against is that it's so ridiculously easy to do that all that cool drama is utterly lost. I'm against the fact that only a handful of melee combat builds have any ability to stop it. I'm against the fact that a flat DC on the check means that wizards and druids pick up enough ranks of it to reliably backflip away from a 20th level fighter as easily as they do a kobold with a gimp leg.

Gnomo
2009-07-14, 02:32 PM
Actually, since any fighter can have access to martial study feats, and given that fighters often have far more feats than they know what to do with...
You have never played a fighter, have you? You actually don't have enough feats.

I second Twilight Jack's opinion.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 02:34 PM
You've never played a fighter, have you? You actually do have enough feats.

I unsecond Twilight's opinion.

Gnomo
2009-07-14, 02:35 PM
You've never played fighters, have you? You do have enough feats.

I unsecond Twilight's opinion.
I have played two... how many have you played?

ericgrau
2009-07-14, 02:37 PM
Saph is currently DMing me in a power-check on these forums, and I am having no real issues with AoOs even when I fail my Tumble checks(and yes, even using standard rules it's possible to fail).

Generally, in my experience, the extra attack is annoying, but not deadly. They still have to beat AC, and unless the opponent is a charger, the damage isn't terrible. Yeah, you'd rather avoid it, but it doesn't make a huge difference.

Saph is DMing a game in these forums? Can I have a link? I want in!


It just renders tactical movement a hollow, empty joke, a mockery of what it should be.

Or something.

Counters to tactics like AoO's only enhance tactical play. And you don't even get maximum usage out of tumble until DC 35-45 so there's a progression. You aren't shutting down the other guy's ability to act normally, whereas "Surprise! I can still hit and almost kill the fragile rogue who relies on flanking to be effective when he thought he'd be ok" royally screws over the tumbler. If it's made a little harder then he better blow a feat & items to make it reliable, or if it's made too hard then he's better off not tumbling or moving by enemies at all, to avoid risking his life and wasting feats & items. For tactical movement there's also jumping, climbing, sneaking, moving & attacking first vs. letting the other guy full attack if you do, combat modifiers based on position, etc., etc.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 02:39 PM
I have played two... how many have you played?

Two. That enough for you, or shall we begin to compare builds?

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 02:39 PM
Saph is DMing a game in these forums? Can I have a link? I want in!

It's a Test of Spite dungeon, and unfortunately it has already started. It's a test of Giacomo's Monk-claims. You can find it here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116095&page=1

quick_comment
2009-07-14, 02:48 PM
Ah, but what about the Second Greatest Swordsman in the world? Should he have to take that same two level dip or pair of feats, or should tumblers be able to pass through his space effortlessly?

See what I did there?

So does the second greatest wizard have dimension door?


Thicket of blades is awesome not just to stop tumble, but to stop 5ft steps and withdraw. Combine it with mageslayer to stop dimension door and teleport.

ericgrau
2009-07-14, 02:51 PM
It's a Test of Spite dungeon, and unfortunately it has already started. It's a test of Giacomo's Monk-claims. You can find it here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116095&page=1

Oh, I thought it was a real campaign. Still sounds interesting though, maybe I'll check by and see how it turns out.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 02:52 PM
You've never played a fighter, have you? You actually do have enough feats.

I unsecond Twilight's opinion.

My, but you're tiresome. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Once again, it isn't about whether anyone has enough feats to spare a few for a ToB stance. It's about whether or not every melee character in existence should have to do so in order to prevent aged wizards from cartwheeling past them with impunity.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 03:00 PM
You're exaggerating.

1. Aged wizards have severe dex penalties.

2. They have can found new planes when they get bored. Wizards moving past you at half speed is the least of your worries.


An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process.
So get on to the other guy about it as well. His argument was an unfounded statement with nothing back it up.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 03:02 PM
So does the second greatest wizard have dimension door?


Thicket of blades is awesome not just to stop tumble, but to stop 5ft steps and withdraw. Combine it with mageslayer to stop dimension door and teleport.

I agree. Thicket of Blades is awesome. It just shouldn't be a requirement to keep folks from tumbling past you.

And I'd imagine that almost every wizard in the world's top ten knows dimension door. There's no reason why he shouldn't, unless he's banned Conjuration (and if he has then he isn't very well in the top ten now, is he?). But a wizard has far more spells than a fighter has feats, or a crusader has stances. You're not comparing apples to apples.

Doug Lampert
2009-07-14, 03:02 PM
Well, the design philosophy is good, it's the application that is awful.
Nah, the design philosophy sucks too. Unbalanced weak now and unbalanced strong later isn't ballanced, it's unballanced twice.

Feat trees SHOULD have every feat worthwhile on its own.

Make toughness a prereq for something good enough that taking toughness NOW so you can take <whatever> later is actually a good idea is a GUARANTEE that this character will NEVER again be balanced. Too weak till <whatever> kicks in and too strong after <whatever> kicks in.

If you don't care about balance that's fine, but if you don't care about balance then why are you using crap feats to balance things? And if you do care about balance then it's an all around disaster.

Deepblue706
2009-07-14, 03:06 PM
If you don't care about balance that's fine, but if you don't care about balance then why are you using crap feats to balance things? And if you do care about balance then it's an all around disaster.

Balance (Dex) is also a broken skill, you know. Which, incidentally, gets synergy from Tumble!

Evilfeeds
2009-07-14, 03:06 PM
My, but you're tiresome. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

What does quoting monty python jokes fall under?
Maybe you should start comparing other posters to Hitler. I hear thats quite useful for strengthening your position.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 03:07 PM
Let me introduce a debating tactic known as "No, you!"

"Why should every skillmonkey in exsistance be forced to take up tumble just so he can move the world's worst fighter, nup-nup the peg leg kobold?"

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 03:16 PM
You're exaggerating.

1. Aged wizards have severe dex penalties.

2. They have can found new planes when they get bored. Wizards moving past you at half speed is the least of your worries.


So get on to the other guy about it as well. His argument was an unfounded statement with nothing back it up.

Of course I'm exaggerating. Exaggeration to humorous purpose is a time-tested rhetorical device.

1. Aged (and I mean venerable) wizards have only a -3 to their checks compared to their salad days. That's not enough to prevent a bit of DC 15 tumbling shenanigans, if they've a mind to.

2. Yes, high level wizards doing a back layout with a half twist to cover 15' away from me is the least of my worries. At this point, however, you're attacking the strawman of my humorous exaggeration rather than the core of my argument, which is that flat Tumble DCs allow any jerk with a few spare skill points the ability to double salto past 20th level fighters without consequence, even if Tumble isn't a class skill for them.

Oh, and I didn't get onto the other guy because the other guy wasn't engaging in argument. He was interjecting with a, "Me too." It wasn't precisely a constructive addition to the conversation, but at least it wasn't needlessly rude.

quick_comment
2009-07-14, 03:18 PM
I agree. Thicket of Blades is awesome. It just shouldn't be a requirement to keep folks from tumbling past you.

And I'd imagine that almost every wizard in the world's top ten knows dimension door. There's no reason why he shouldn't, unless he's banned Conjuration (and if he has then he isn't very well in the top ten now, is he?). But a wizard has far more spells than a fighter has feats, or a crusader has stances. You're not comparing apples to apples.

And thats why wizards are win. They also have things that they must have to to be good, its just that they get many more options.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 03:21 PM
And thats why wizards are win. They also have things that they must have to to be good, its just that they get many more options.

Yup, wizards kick that ass with a cherry on top. But the might of wizards isn't really what we're talking about here.

quick_comment
2009-07-14, 03:24 PM
Yup, wizards kick that ass with a cherry on top. But the might of wizards isn't really what we're talking about here.

Melee types need thicket of blades to lockdown.

Wizards need dimension door for mobility.

Why is it such an unpardonable offense that melee types need thicket of blades?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 03:24 PM
Of course I'm exaggerating. Exaggeration to humorous purpose is a time-tested rhetorical device.
Forgive me. I do not have a sense of humor that I am aware of.


1. Aged (and I mean venerable) wizards have only a -3 to their checks compared to their salad days. That's not enough to prevent a bit of DC 15 tumbling shenanigans, if they've a mind to.

2. Yes, high level wizards doing a back layout with a half twist to cover 15' away from me is the least of my worries. At this point, however, you're attacking the strawman of my humorous exaggeration rather than the core of my argument, which is that flat Tumble DCs allow any jerk with a few skill points to spare the ability to double salto past 20th level fighters without consequence.

So how many ranks in tumble do we need to "effortlessly" tumble past Fighter McFighter?

By level 15, we can have 9 ranks cross class. This, along with a +3 dex bonus, in line for most wizards of that level, gives +12 to Tumble, in exchange for 18 skill points. You can get +2 from 5 ranks (10 skill points) in Jump. That's +14, enough to never fail.

Of course, as a Wizard, you spend most of your skill points on Concentration, K. Arcana, Dungeoneering, Planes, Nature, Religion, possibly a few points into Decipher Script, and Spellcraft,

You get 2+ Int Mod skill points per level. Assuming Human with 18 Int, this is enough to max out the 7 skills above. You won't get skill points outside of those 7 per level until level 8, which means that you can't even afford to start investing in Tumbling before level 8 without affecting your base skillset.

And you don't get 18 skill points to make the effortless tumble check from levels 8 to 15, or even from levels 8 to 20.

I suppose if you wanted to, you could sacrifice two of the knowledge skills for Tumble early on... but you'll have a pretty sucky tumble and suffer when fighting the random monster of the week challenge.

Perhaps I am wrong. Twilight, how is the wizard effortlessly tumbling past Fighter McFighter?



Oh, and I didn't get onto the other guy because the other guy wasn't engaging in argument. He was interjecting with a, "Me too." It wasn't precisely a constructive addition to the conversation, but at least it wasn't a **** move.
I don't know, the condescension wasn't very useful for his argument.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 03:30 PM
What does quoting monty python jokes fall under?
Maybe you should start comparing other posters to Hitler. I hear thats quite useful for strengthening your position.

I quote Monty Python when Monty Python has something relevant to say regarding the situation.

I compare other posters to Hitler when they start trumpeting the glorious destiny of the Aryan people and the necessary and just solution to the Jewish Problem in order to defend the future of Germany.

Also, calling Godwin on someone who ain't gone Godwin is a form of Godwinism.

ericgrau
2009-07-14, 03:33 PM
@PF: You mean to tumble away from fighter mcfighter who came to you, or else there's a move speed item or spell you forgot to include. You need all your movement just to tumble past the 3 threatened squares on fighter mcfighter's side and still have an action to cast. Putting you right in "Omg why am I flanking, I'm a caster!" position. Tumbling away 5 feet them moving the rest before casting puts you a healthy 25 feet away.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 03:36 PM
I just recalled that the lowest tumble DC for tumbling involving an enemy was 15 and calibrated accordingly.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 03:40 PM
Melee types need thicket of blades to lockdown.

Wizards need dimension door for mobility.

Why is it such an unpardonable offense that melee types need thicket of blades?

Because dimension door is a generic 4th level sorcerer/wizard spell that can be easily acquired in Core by any arcane caster who uses the wiz/sorc list once they're 7th or 8th level.

Thicket of Blades, by contrast, is a highly specialized ability in a splatbook that not everybody uses, and the notion that it should be de rigeur for all melee builds who hope to operate as a defender is dubious at best.

PurinaDragonCho
2009-07-14, 03:42 PM
Maybe this question has already been asked, and if so, sorry...

But is concentration broken, since it allows you to cast without provoking? 12 ranks plus a Third Eye Concentrate (+10 to concentration) almost guarantees you'll make your check.

Just an observation here, but it seems like the people in this thread who think tumble is broken are all very familiar with Tome of Battle. I've never played in a campaign that used that book. I wonder if that's the distinguishing factor between the two camps. Interesting. Or maybe I'm completely wrong about that, which is not remotely interesting.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 03:49 PM
Tumble is considered broken because it allows people to bypass fighters easily after a certain level.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 03:54 PM
Forgive me. I do not have a sense of humor that I am aware of.

Ah. You and I, we ain't going to communicate too well. Although points for the ironic declaration.


Perhaps I am wrong. Twilight, how is the wizard effortlessly tumbling past Fighter McFighter?

"Effortless" is another exaggeration, when we're talking wizards, this one born of frustration with the system rather than humor. Even so, it ain't too hard to get to a +10, which succeeds on anything higher than a 4.

But that ain't really the point either. The point is that a flat DC allows characters to avoid those AoO with impunity, regardless of who they're tumbling past. You get to a certain fixed point and Boom, there's never again any risk incurred by moving through threatened space.



I don't know, the condescension wasn't very useful for his argument.

Fair enough. In rereading his (very short) post, I only just now fully groked that he led off with a needless aspersion cast upon your ranks in Knowledge: What the Hell You're Talking About. Bad Jack, no donut. I concede that I tap danced on you unfairly in my response.

Blackfang108
2009-07-14, 03:55 PM
I agree. Thicket of Blades is awesome. It just shouldn't be a requirement to keep folks from tumbling past you.

And stopping people from tumbling past you shouldn't be a requirement of being the world's greatest swordsman.

I'm not seeing your point.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 03:57 PM
Tumble is considered broken because it allows people to bypass fighters easily after a certain level.

Finally, we have agreement! Melee classes are already getting enough of a raw deal.

I'm hardly suggesting that a fix for Tumble will magically bring Fighters up to snuff, but the process of reforming the system for a bit more balance is one of baby steps.

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 03:59 PM
And stopping people from tumbling past you shouldn't be a requirement of being the world's greatest swordsman.

I'm not seeing your point.

I agree with Twilight here to a degree: I don't think you should be able to stop Tumbling without a specific relatively obscure stance (frankly, I don't like absolutes - I don't think being able to completely negate a tactic with one stance/spell/whatever is ever healthy), but I think it should be harder to Tumble past a more competent opponent.

That's what it all comes down to - if anyone has a solid argument as to why it shouldn't be harder to Tumble past skilled warriors capable of taking advantage of smaller openings, I'd like to hear it. If not, I think the matter is settled: the static DC doesn't make sense and should thus make way for a DC that depends on the opponent you're trying to Tumble past.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 03:59 PM
"Effortless" is another exaggeration, when we're talking wizards, this one born of frustration with the system rather than humor.

For the sake of others knowing what the heck you are talking about, you really need to stop doing that.


Even so, it ain't too hard to get to a +10, which succeeds on anything higher than a 4.
You'd get +10 by level 11, assuming you sacrifice a few Knowledges here and there.

"Tumbles McGee... can't identify a Hydra, but can do gymnastics at a high school level!"

Note: a 2nd level high school student can get +10 from ranks in Tumble, synergy from Jump, and Dex.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 04:02 PM
And stopping people from tumbling past you shouldn't be a requirement of being the world's greatest swordsman.

I'm not seeing your point.

Yeah, it should. The general purpose of a fighter within a party is to deal damage and soak it up in return, so that your squishier friends don't die screaming. If you can't hold a 10' wide hallway against a single low-level rogue, then you've utterly failed in that purpose.

Blackfang108
2009-07-14, 04:07 PM
Yeah, it should. The general purpose of a fighter within a party is to deal damage and soak it up in return, so that your squishier friends don't die screaming. If you can't hold a 10' wide hallway against a single low-level rogue, then you've utterly failed in that purpose.

You've slowed him to half of his normal speed merely by being in his way, keeping him from the squishys long enough for them to remove him from the fight with yet another Maze (No save, High DC INT check), Power Word (No Save), Disentegrate, Phantasmal Killer, Implosion, etc.

9mm
2009-07-14, 04:17 PM
so after a quick browsing the complait is: "Tumbling is broken because any one with 5 ranks can instantly get behind anybody without provoking an AoO."

First 5 ranks isn't enough it's actualy 19 to auto pass in the best of circumstanes; assuming the the creature/fighter/target is medium and doesn't have reach he threatens a 3x3 square, the average move speed of any character is 30ft, which is cut to 15ft when tumble is used. in other words just enough to enter the danger zone and into position, which is 3 AoOs you have to get through. and this even assumes your in the correct position to begin with, otherwise it will take 2 turns to get there or a double move. so DC = 19; 29 if you want to go through opponets square to get acrobatic backstab. Reach makes it worse by making you make more checks, also don't forget that if your speed is lowered because of armor or encumbrance you can't tumble. The surface your tumbling on also effects the DC. As does your targets friends who will very likely also threaten the same squares.

Typewriter
2009-07-14, 04:26 PM
I'm personally of the opinion that tumble is not broken, but I do not like that it is one of the few things that is a PASS/FAIL. No opposed rolls, no rolling against someones skills(you roll your own skill check, but the opponent doesn't matter).

15 ranks vs. level 20 fighter = PASS
1000 ranks vs. thicket of blades = FAIL
8 ranks with some luck vs. level 20 fighter = PASS
4 ranks and a roll of 10 vs. level 1 wizard = FAIL

None of those scenarios make any sense.

I think the DC should be based off of something else, or at the very least the defender should get some type of a counter roll to do something - even if it's just to stop the movement.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 04:28 PM
For the sake of others knowing what the heck you are talking about, you really need to stop doing that.

Perhaps, instead, those same others should avoid seizing upon a single word within an argument and basing their rebuttal upon a granular parsing of the word's meaning. For the sake of avoiding needless tangents.

Still your larger point is well taken, in that I am given to hyperbole and rhetorical flourishes, sometimes at the expense of succinctness and clarity.

I just get caught up in the fun of the verbal back and forth, and sometimes forget that arguments on the internets iz SERIOUS BUSINESS!

See, I just did it again. :smallbiggrin:

But in all seriousness, I realize that I'm not always as concrete as I should be.


You'd get +10 by level 11, assuming you sacrifice a few Knowledges here and there.

"Tumbles McGee... can't identify a Hydra, but can do gymnastics at a high school level!"

And he's benefitted by it so long as he never encounters a hydra. :smallwink:

But once again, you're harping on the wizard to the exclusion of the larger point. The rogue is autosucceeding for a DC 15 at level 6, with a 16 Dex and no optimization at all. He's succeeding on anything above 4 at level 3. Optimize it a bit and you've got autosuccess at level 2. And the only ways to stop it are way outside of Core.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 04:30 PM
You've slowed him to half of his normal speed merely by being in his way, keeping him from the squishys long enough for them to remove him from the fight with yet another Maze (No save, High DC INT check), Power Word (No Save), Disentegrate, Phantasmal Killer, Implosion, etc.

And again, that's not the point. The point is that the Core Fighter should have some kind of option here other than expecting that the spellcasters will just take care of it.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 04:33 PM
I'm personally of the opinion that tumble is not broken, but I do not like that it is one of the few things that is a PASS/FAIL. No opposed rolls, no rolling against someones skills(you roll your own skill check, but the opponent doesn't matter).

15 ranks vs. level 20 fighter = PASS
1000 ranks vs. thicket of blades = FAIL
8 ranks with some luck vs. level 20 fighter = PASS
4 ranks and a roll of 10 vs. level 1 wizard = FAIL

None of those scenarios make any sense.

I think the DC should be based off of something else, or at the very least the defender should get some type of a counter roll to do something - even if it's just to stop the movement.

Exactly. By using the word "broken," I do not mean that it is game "breaking." I mean that it does not adequately model the concept it's trying to model in a fair and fun manner for all participants. Hence, it doesn't work the way it should. Hence, it is broken, quod erat demonstrandum.

Blackfang108
2009-07-14, 04:35 PM
And again, that's not the point. The point is that the Core Fighter should have some kind of option here other than expecting that the spellcasters will just take care of it.

Then the Core Fighter, on his turn, Uses full PA with a 2h Weapon to erase the rogue from the multiverse. He may need to make a 5 foot step to reach, or he may need to charge. either way, that rogue will soon be resting in pieces.

I wasn't using a vaccum for my earlier example. Now I am:

The Tumbling Rogue and the Core Fighter with no party both suffocate in the vaccum. They are both dead, and everyone loses. :smallbiggrin:

snoopy13a
2009-07-14, 04:39 PM
And again, that's not the point. The point is that the Core Fighter should have some kind of option here other than expecting that the spellcasters will just take care of it.

I think the option is hit the tumbler next turn. The fighter can also ready an action to attack any tumbling character who comes within range of him or her.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 04:40 PM
Then the Core Fighter, on his turn, Uses full PA with a 2h Weapon to erase the rogue from the multiverse. He may need to make a 5 foot step to reach, or he may need to charge. either way, that rogue will soon be resting in pieces.

I wasn't using a vaccum for my earlier example. Now I am:

The Tumbling Rogue and the Core Fighter with no party both suffocate in the vaccum. They are both dead, and everyone loses. :smallbiggrin:

Very good. The spellcasters are all fine, as they are always assumed to have the necessary magic prepared to either survive in vacuum, create atmosphere within the vacuum, or teleport themselves out of the vacuum. :smallbiggrin:

And I agree that the fighter has options to deal with the rogue on his own turn. I just wish that tumbling past opponents took those opponents' abilities into account. I don't think it should be so terribly difficult to institute a reasonable fix to allow for that.

What's hilarious is that this thread has become a four page heated argument, when all I was looking for were some quick ideas for patches.

EDIT: It's five pages now.

Blackfang108
2009-07-14, 04:44 PM
Very good. The spellcasters are all fine, as they are always assumed to have the necessary magic prepared to either survive in vacuum, create atmosphere within the vacuum, or teleport themselves out of the vacuum. :smallbiggrin:

I assumed the casters were all INT Based, and as such were smart enough to bail, and just left their "friends." :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 04:50 PM
Very good. The spellcasters are all fine, as they are always assumed to have the necessary magic prepared to either survive in vacuum, create atmosphere within the vacuum, or teleport themselves out of the vacuum. :smallbiggrin:

And I agree that the fighter has options to deal with the rogue on his own turn. I just wish that tumbling past opponents took those opponents' abilities into account. I don't think it should be so terribly difficult to institute a reasonable fix to allow for that.

What's hilarious is that this thread has become a four page heated argument, when all I was looking for were some quick ideas for patches.

EDIT: It's five pages now.

It's 'cause people tend to get stuck with trivialities and some just intentionally troll these topics for their own amusement. Ignoring the background noise, here's the thread in a nutshell:
What we have concluded thus far is that Tumble as written is non-sensical, some people don't care and oppose changes out of principle/whatever, and others have proposed 3 fixes (pardon me if I missed some):
-Make Tumble DC 10+Threatener's BAB-size modifier (also 15+½ BAB-size suggested) instead of fixed 15.
-Give people you're walking past a Reflex-save (I'd prefer some comparable check, but c'est la vie) vs. your Tumble check to take their AoO anyways.
-Use Tumble-check as AC against the AoOs.

I personally like option 1 since it means the lowest number of rolls (excessive rolling grinds the game down to a halt really quick - just look at those ~20-attack Multiweapon Fighters) while still being sensible - just a matter of getting the DCs right. Then stuff like Thicket of Blades could increase the DC instead of a blanket counter.

Doug Lampert
2009-07-14, 05:00 PM
You've slowed him to half of his normal speed merely by being in his way, keeping him from the squishys long enough for them to remove him from the fight with yet another Maze (No save, High DC INT check), Power Word (No Save), Disentegrate, Phantasmal Killer, Implosion, etc.
If they have those spells then a lower level rogue still has it as automatic, at full speed not half speed, and even in a 5' corridor where he needs to go through your space.

9mm
2009-07-14, 05:05 PM
If they have those spells then a lower level rogue still has it as automatic, at full speed not half speed, and even in a 5' corridor where he needs to go through your space.

yes because you can beat a 29 DC minimum while taking a -10 for moving at full speed with only 5 ranks in tumble (the thesis of this thread), plus the +6 per guy in front of the caster... oh wait, you can't even make the basic check with out having a +14 dex modifier.

the op mentioned wishing the fighter had a counter that didn't involve going out side core, he has one, its called a reach weapon.

Murdim
2009-07-14, 05:17 PM
8 ranks with some luck vs. level 20 fighter = PASS
4 ranks and a roll of 10 vs. level 1 wizard = FAILIt does make sense if you take into account the fact that your average level 1 wizard will need to get something around a natural 18 in his attack roll to touch you anyway. An attack of opportunity is still an attack.

Also, it should be noted that Tumble has nothing to do with dodging attacks, which is the function of the AC and effectively depends of the enemy's BAB. It is about not provoking attacks of opportunity while moving, i.e moving in a way that doesn't let your opponents deal an "easy" attack to you. A success in a Tumble check means that your character manages to move in such a way that he doesn't offer himself to free strikes - but it doesn't improve his ability to negate the blows of those who make an effort to touch him while he's moving, for exemple by using readied actions.

Quietus
2009-07-14, 05:17 PM
What's hilarious is that this thread has become a four page heated argument, when all I was looking for were some quick ideas for patches.

EDIT: It's five pages now.

You've gotten several, including my suggestion that you have the <whatever> make a Tumble check to move past. The Fighter still gets his AoO, but he now has to beat the *tumble check* in order to hit. So the Rogue makes a cartwheel that's X good to get past, and if the Fighter's skill is X+1 at hitting, he hits despite the Rogue's attempt to avoid him. It naturally scales upward as both level.

As for why it works/doesn't work, it was pointed out that a "second level high school student" could have +10 Tumble (5 ranks, 2 synergy, 3 dex). Consider that this is the type of person who would be VERY focused on their athletics - in fact, as a second level individual with a stat array better than the "elite" array (the highest that array grants is 15), they aren't just any random second level high school student. They're a PC. They're a star in the school, and will likely be going on to things such as regional, possibly national competitions. Being capable of never failing the check at level 6 is fine, because at that level, you have become superhuman. Level 5 is roughly the level of the most impressive individuals on the planet, when you consider skill-wise what they are capable of. Olympians hang around level 4-5.

If you don't want to play a game with that feel to it, then use any one of the many fixes suggested in this thread. But the basic assumption in my D&D worlds (and, I'd argue, most of them) is that players are decidedly a cut above. If there's a flat DC for something, they *should* be able to hit that by that level 4-5ish range, or be nearing that point.

Lycar
2009-07-14, 05:26 PM
First 5 ranks isn't enough it's actualy 19 to auto pass in the best of circumstanes; assuming the the creature/fighter/target is medium and doesn't have reach he threatens a 3x3 square, the average move speed of any character is 30ft, which is cut to 15ft when tumble is used. in other words just enough to enter the danger zone and into position, which is 3 AoOs you have to get through.

You may want to recheck the rules on AoOs: A single move through a single enemie's threatened area only provokes once, no matter how far you move.

Lycar

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 05:28 PM
If you don't want to play a game with that feel to it, then use any one of the many fixes suggested in this thread. But the basic assumption in my D&D worlds (and, I'd argue, most of them) is that players are decidedly a cut above. If there's a flat DC for something, they *should* be able to hit that by that level 4-5ish range, or be nearing that point.

But the problem is, that flat DC is enough to beat other superhumans! Beating mooks is all fine and good, but when you can get past A GOD with that same DC 15 check, something is wrong.

Also, a commoner array high school student who's focused in tumbling achieves the same +10 with 5 ranks, 2 synergy, 3 skill focus. That's a focused person of your dexterity doing it; nobody special gifts-wise, just a lot of training (he probably has few skillpoints left thanks to being a Human even if he doesn't have a special intellect so that's not all he does either); as much as you can by second level anyways. Actually, with a skill feat, the same 10-base guy could have +12 without any Dex-bonus. With elite array, he'd be +14 and never fail the check.


Also, regarding the DC increases, it's only +2 for each additional opponent, not each additional square so going through 5 squares threatened by the same fighter is only DC 15 (or 25 to move at full speed).

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 05:35 PM
You've gotten several, including my suggestion that you have the <whatever> make a Tumble check to move past. The Fighter still gets his AoO, but he now has to beat the *tumble check* in order to hit. So the Rogue makes a cartwheel that's X good to get past, and if the Fighter's skill is X+1 at hitting, he hits despite the Rogue's attempt to avoid him. It naturally scales upward as both level.

As for why it works/doesn't work, it was pointed out that a "second level high school student" could have +10 Tumble (5 ranks, 2 synergy, 3 dex). Consider that this is the type of person who would be VERY focused on their athletics - in fact, as a second level individual with a stat array better than the "elite" array (the highest that array grants is 15), they aren't just any random second level high school student. They're a PC. They're a star in the school, and will likely be going on to things such as regional, possibly national competitions. Being capable of never failing the check at level 6 is fine, because at that level, you have become superhuman. Level 5 is roughly the level of the most impressive individuals on the planet, when you consider skill-wise what they are capable of. Olympians hang around level 4-5.

If you don't want to play a game with that feel to it, then use any one of the many fixes suggested in this thread. But the basic assumption in my D&D worlds (and, I'd argue, most of them) is that players are decidedly a cut above. If there's a flat DC for something, they *should* be able to hit that by that level 4-5ish range, or be nearing that point.

And none of that part is a problem. I recognize that PCs are a cut above and that level 5-6 is the entry point to legendary heroic status in many folks' minds. My issue is merely that it's no more difficult to tumble past a similarly heroic badass, no matter how cool he may be.

And I wasn't discounting the great suggestions I have received, merely noting how far afield the discussion went otherwise.

Murdim
2009-07-14, 05:37 PM
But the problem is, [i]Also, a commoner array high school student who's focused in tumbling achieves the same +10 with 5 ranks, 2 synergy, 3 skill focus. That's a focused person of your dexterity doing it; nobody special gifts-wise, just a lot of trainingNo. A level 2 commoner is already a quite exceptional individual. The Skill Focus feat is pretty much the direct opposite of "not special gift-wise" in a given skill. "A lot of training" becomes an euphemism when it implies to spend most of one's skills points in order to manage one precise task.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 05:45 PM
It's 'cause people tend to get stuck with trivialities and some just intentionally troll these topics for their own amusement. Ignoring the background noise, here's the thread in a nutshell:
What we have concluded thus far is that Tumble as written is non-sensical, some people don't care and oppose changes out of principle/whatever, and others have proposed 3 fixes (pardon me if I missed some):
-Make Tumble DC 10+Threatener's BAB-size modifier (also 15+½ BAB-size suggested) instead of fixed 15.
-Give people you're walking past a Reflex-save (I'd prefer some comparable check, but c'est la vie) vs. your Tumble check to take their AoO anyways.
-Use Tumble-check as AC against the AoOs.

I personally like option 1 since it means the lowest number of rolls (excessive rolling grinds the game down to a halt really quick - just look at those ~20-attack Multiweapon Fighters) while still being sensible - just a matter of getting the DCs right. Then stuff like Thicket of Blades could increase the DC instead of a blanket counter.

I agree that scaling the DC off the BAB of the opponent, while allowing for size modifiers to make a difference, seems the most elegant solution. I'll toy with the numbers to find a good balance that allows tumblers to still do what they do against most opponents, while introducing some element of chance to the proceedings.

And I don't have a problem with Thicket of Blades putting a stop to tumbling entirely, since it stops even the 5' step. But that's partially because ToB classes don't replace the core melee classes in my games, but merely supplement them. Crusaders, et al, are rare in my world, which makes them all the more impressive when they do turn up. I do a similar thing with most of the non-core classes, with a few notable exceptions for classes I feel fill a niche that should have been in Core.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 05:47 PM
Fighters weren't really designed to "hold the line" as far as I can tell, which probably is why they don't have any abilities to counter tumble.

Ok, looking at the Fighter, I'm not entirely sure what it was supposed to do, but it seems to have been centered around dealing damage rather than protecting people in the manner envisioned.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 05:53 PM
Fighters weren't really designed to "hold the line" as far as I can tell, which probably is why they don't have any abilities to counter tumble.

Ok, looking at the Fighter, I'm not entirely sure what it was supposed to do, but it seems to have been centered around dealing damage rather than protecting people in the manner envisioned.

That's because, prior to 3.x, the entire notion of tactical movement having real consequences via flanking and AoO was spotty at best.

So the fighter doesn't wind up able to hold the line or protect his team mates properly, because the game's designers started the edition with a incomplete notion of what exactly the fighter would be protecting them from. The fighter's deficiencies were poorly understood by the designers until deep in the evolution of 3.x.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 05:58 PM
You know, this really points to the fighter being broken more than Tumble being broken.

Zeful
2009-07-14, 05:58 PM
No. A level 2 commoner is already a quite exceptional individual. The Skill Focus feat is pretty much the direct opposite of "not special gift-wise" in a given skill. "A lot of training" becomes an euphemism when it implies to spend most of one's skills points in order to manage one precise task.

Actually 2nd level commoners are pretty common. A thorp with 20 people (the minimum for the smallest township) will have roughly 7 commoners above 2nd level (4d4-3 averages to 7 (2.5*4-3), and then 7/2 rounded up is 4, and 4/2 is 2, there will be four level 2 commoners, 2 level 4 commoners and 1 level seven commoner).

snoopy13a
2009-07-14, 06:00 PM
Fighters weren't really designed to "hold the line" as far as I can tell, which probably is why they don't have any abilities to counter tumble.

Ok, looking at the Fighter, I'm not entirely sure what it was supposed to do, but it seems to have been centered around dealing damage rather than protecting people in the manner envisioned.

Fighter is designed to be a heavily flexible combat class. Its problem is as more and more supplements come out, its possible niches are better served by specific classes.

A fighter can be:

1) A mounted lancer
2) A finese, Dex based fighter (granted not very well) with weapon finese, combat expertise, and feats like spring attack or whirlwind attack
3) A tripper that can control the battlefield (unless fighting tumbling characters :smalltongue: )
4) An archer
5) Sword and board (again not a good choice)
6) Two handed power attacker

All of these different combat philosophies, to different extents of effectiveness, can be expressed by a Fighter character.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 06:02 PM
You know, this really points to the fighter being broken more than Tumble being broken.

The fighter is more broken than Tumble is. It doesn't necessarily follow that Tumble doesn't need some tweaking as well.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 06:06 PM
Quite frankly, your definition of broken, given earlier, is too general and can be applied to pretty much anything.

Any skill, class, power, ability, and feat falls under your definition.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 06:20 PM
Quite frankly, your definition of broken, given earlier, is too general and can be applied to pretty much anything.

Any skill, class, power, ability, and feat falls under your definition.

Well sure, for an especially rigorous definition of "doesn't work right." But I'm not writing a dictionary or attempting to codify admittedly subjective terms into a concrete empirical framework. I'm just a DM who's now looking at 3.5 D&D as a complete work, with no further official support forthcoming.

WotC is done with 3.x, but I am not. I intend to continue running my D&D there until the Spooky Wizard's secret police come and take away all my sourcebooks.

Since WotC is done supporting my edition, I am slowly but surely picking my way through the rules in search of little tweaks and fixes that will make my games run more smoothly, without having to overhaul the entire damn thing.

In this thread, I was talking about Tumble, because it's a small thing and a good testing ground for some basic application of a coherent design philosophy. The bigger fixes are more difficult, so they come later, once I've got a better handle on the variables.

Murdim
2009-07-14, 06:22 PM
It's 'cause people tend to get stuck with trivialities and some just intentionally troll these topics for their own amusement. Ignoring the background noise, here's the thread in a nutshell:
What we have concluded thus far is that Tumble as written is non-sensical, some people don't care and oppose changes out of principle/whatever, and others have proposed 3 fixes (pardon me if I missed some):Isn't that essentially rejecting all opposition as trolls ? :smallsigh:

Here's one good reason not to "fix" the Tumble skill : we don't need any additional unnecessary complication to the already heavy rollplay.

As for the "nonsensical", fluff-wise side of the problem... I already proposed an explanation to why the only depends on the tumbler's skill and not the attacker's, in my first message, in the previous page.

Typewriter
2009-07-14, 06:23 PM
It does make sense if you take into account the fact that your average level 1 wizard will need to get something around a natural 18 in his attack roll to touch you anyway. An attack of opportunity is still an attack.

Also, it should be noted that Tumble has nothing to do with dodging attacks, which is the function of the AC and effectively depends of the enemy's BAB. It is about not provoking attacks of opportunity while moving, i.e moving in a way that doesn't let your opponents deal an "easy" attack to you. A success in a Tumble check means that your character manages to move in such a way that he doesn't offer himself to free strikes - but it doesn't improve his ability to negate the blows of those who make an effort to touch him while he's moving, for exemple by using readied actions.

I agree that tumbling is an act of not opening yourself to attack, but if doing so is so easy you would think that things such as total defense would be somewhat more effective.

Not to mention that the flat DC means that all attackers see the same openings on all attacks. The level 1 wizard is just as likely to spot an opening in the rogues tumble as the 20th level fighter? Actually, I have a thought....I'll get that in a moment...back to the point at hand, the likelihood of being able to use the opening you see effectively is not the point. It's whether there is one, but I feel that it should be whether the attacker sees one(opposed rolls).


Quite frankly, your definition of broken, given earlier, is too general and can be applied to pretty much anything.

Any skill, class, power, ability, and feat falls under your definition.

It can be applied to just about anything, but this is fairly unique in that it requires so little to master with no chance of opposed roles, and very few abilities to circumvent.


My thought:

Tumble vs. spot to notice the hole in defense. If your perception check beats the tumble then you spot a hole in the defense and get an AoO. If not, you don't. Favor still goes to the tumbler, because he's more likely to have a good dex and more skills than the fighter is having a high wisdom. I suppose you could go with concentration(their focus on the battle), but I'd go with spot personally.

Either way, just my thoughts on the matter.

Twilight Jack
2009-07-14, 06:28 PM
Isn't that essentially rejecting all opposition as trolls ? :smallsigh:

Not at all, it's rejecting the tendency to overparse a given statement and repeatedly attack a perceived weakpoint by exaggerating it's relevance to the statement in sum.


Here's one good reason not to "fix" the Tumble skill : we don't need any additional unnecessary complication to the already heavy rollplay.

And that's only a good reason if you believe a simple scaling DC is a superfluous complication.


As for the "nonsensical", fluff-wise side of the problem... I already proposed an explanation to why the only depends on the tumbler's skill and not the attacker's, in my first message, in the previous page.

And your fluff explanation is the best I've heard so far. It nearly swayed me on the entire matter. But I remain ultimately unconvinced, as the nature of movement through threatened space is a bit different than spellcasting on the defensive (which also allows for a check that doesn't take the attacker's capabilities into account). It's a stylistic thing for me, but I see the two as very different beasts.

Typewriter
2009-07-14, 06:58 PM
Oh, and one more point about tumbling being more about 'not leaving yourself open' instead of 'dodging around people attacking you'. Wouldn't a shield help with that? Nope, the armor check applies to tumble if I'm not mistaken.

Naked farmer brown is better at avoiding the worlds best fighter than a 1st level rogue...

:)

Gnomo
2009-07-14, 07:18 PM
This thread has fallen into an ideological struggle, but nobody is doing the numbers, that's what is missing.

I will consider 4 characters for this, two tumblers and two defenders, one is an expert tumbler (rogue) who will focus on getting more Dexterity every level possible, he will start with Dex score of 16, at 8th level he will have a Dex score of 18 and at 16th level he will have a Dex score of 20, and he will use the +2 synergy bonus from Jump. The second character is a cross class occasional tumbler (wizard would be a fine idea since it has been used as an example) which won't benefit from the synergy bonus from Jump. The third one is a competent warrior (fighter) to set the DC of a similar level equivalent PC and most monsters with normal BAB of equivalent level. Finally the fourth one will be a monster CR appropriate for the level with superb attack abilities to set super high DCs for this and reach to see if it breaks somehow (chromatic dragon chosen by its CR to match the level of the characters).

For this the Rogue will start with a Dex of 16 and the Wizard with a Dex of 12 (the most common array in the games I have seen so far). I will use as equipment only a pair of gloves of dexterity +2 starting from 6th level, then a pair of gloves of dexterity +4 starting from 12th level and finally a pair of gloves of dexterity +6 starting at 18th level, since is the most commonly used item for Dex pumping in most campaigns, apart from this I won't consider any other item into the mix and no spell because they are circumstantial, so this Tumble modifiers are not completely optimized.

The Rogue and Wizard values are their tumble bonus. On the other hand the Fighter and Dragon values are the DCs if we were using 10 + BAB as tumble past DC.

{table=head]Level|Rogue|Wizard|Fighter|Dragon
1|+7|+3|11|--
2|+10|+3|12|13 (white tiny wyrmling)
5|+13|+5|15|21 (green medium young)
10|+20|+8|20|26 (red large juvenile)
15|+26|+12|25|34 (white huge old)
20|+33|+15|30|44 (black gargantuan wyrm)[/table]

So, what do you think? I consider the values to be quite fine, the dedicated tumbler will have it easy from level 1 against most enemies but will have to roll with some luck (maximum value needed for the roll is 11 against the CR 20 Black Wyrm) against the most dangerous enemies. Again the values are not optimized, just using the most common benefits (Dexterity + Ranks + synergy + gloves of dexterity).

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 07:54 PM
If we also apply the size penalties as suggested, the DCs against Dragons are:

White Wyrmling*: 13
Green Young: 21
Red Large: 25
White Old: 32
Black Wyrm: 40

*It doesn't really threaten outside its own square, so the number is of low importance.

As a bonus entry:
The Tarrasque: 50

I think all of those are pretty good; you won't be fast-moving vs. the Tarrasque without heavy dedication (though those numbers are possible to hit by level 20 - 23 ranks, 2 synergy, +13 Dex, +10 comp/insight item, +1 luck, +1 insight/comp = +50, enough to take 10 with Skill Mastery [all but the +10 item exist in Core; MiC has the missing link IIRC] and succeed, but 16 means a lot of works), but then again, you have movement speed boosters and such by then, and you probably don't want to melee Big T anyways. It's supposed to be dangerous to close in on the thing.

Vs. others, you'll be able to meet the fast movement DCs with a +5 magic item & Skill Mastery pretty consistently, needing +1 here, +2 there (additional Dex-buffs, greater-than-+5 items and such are around aplenty; I'd definitely expect +6 by level 15 and inherents by 18). So it seems to work out rather well that way. And make sense.

Also, the cross-classer, with a +5 magic item, can expect to have a chance with average rolls to move at half speed without AoOs, which is about what I'd expect out of cross-class skill outside your primary stat.

EDIT: Psychoactive Skin of Nimbleness is in XPH and can thus be found in SRD. However, it's a Competence-bonus item and we don't have a +1 Insight item in SRD so we're left 1 point short for an unbuffed level 20 Rogue (though with a roll, he has 50% chance of succeeding) given that the Ioun Stone is +1 Competence also. That is unless we use the "Mw. Tool"-suggestion to get something that grants +2 Circumstance (for example, a Tumbler's Suit).

Gnomo
2009-07-14, 09:25 PM
You're right, I didn't realize that being tiny the wyrmling didn't threat any space but the one that it occupies... the problem is that there are not medium dragons with a CR lower than 3, but I guess the point can be made with any other monster with high BAB for its CR, although at lower levels most monsters are not bigger than medium so the reach is hard to put a real threat to tumblers at low level.

For example the Giant Owl (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/owlGiant.htm) is a magical beast so it has a BAB equal to its HD, at its minimum CR of 3 with 4 HD, our 3rd level rogue tumbler will probably have a tumble modifier of +11 and the houseruled DC to pass this monster will be 14 (10 + monster's BAB), so he has a 90% chance to tumble past the Giant Owl, but if the monster has increased HD, to let's say 10 HD (gaining 6 HD and increasing his size by 1 category gaining +3 to its CR) will present a greater threat to our rogue, this Giant Owl is a CR 6 huge monster with a BAB of +10 so it's houseruled tumble past DC is 20, and a 6th level rogue will probably have a +15 modifier to Tumble, with this the change to tumble past this monster is reduced to 75%, an important difference in 3 levels.

Let's try to see if this breaks down at some point, the Giant Owl has a maximum of 12 racial HD for advancing, so we will stop at 10 (optimum value for getting more BAB and the size increase), now we will say that the owl bear is an expert type of monster rather than a warrior, so fighter levels will be non-associated (i know this is very debatable but bear with me on this one), for every 2 fighter levels the Giant Owl will get a +1 to its CR. With this the monster will have 10 magical beast HD and 20 fighter levels and its CR will be 16, its BAB will be +20 so the houseruled tumble past DC is 30... accordingly to the numbers before a rogue at 16th level should have a tumble modifier of +28 (19 ranks + 5 from dex 20 + 2 from jump synergy + 2 from gloves of dexterity +4), so he has now a 95% chance of tumble passing a superb offensive monster.

I think this houserule is the best of all commented so far because it doesn't take a real toll on tumblers (it actually helps them at the lower levels) and make every rank spent in it to count. It doesn't break at higher levels even against the most powerful enemies. For this I don't consider necessary to add a bonus to the DC for the size of the enemy, I think it's enough like that.

I think you are right about the level in which I'm taking magical items into account, seem to be a little late considering the recommended Wealth By Level guide, but I was trying to be conservative in all respects.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 09:29 PM
The Rogue and Wizard values are their tumble bonus. On the other hand the Fighter and Dragon values are the DCs if we were using 10 + BAB as tumble past DC.

The issue I have with the 10+BAB DC is that a Rogue can take 10 from level 10 onwards, and have level+3 ranks in a skill, then synergies, then items on top of that, while your BAB is always going to be 10+level.

At lower levels? The highest DC will be 19, and that's pretty easy a tumble DC to bypass.

This fix makes it harder for someone with cross class ranks to tumble past something, but classes without tumble generally don't put enough skill points into it to tumble well even with the old fixed DC system.

Gnomo
2009-07-14, 09:35 PM
Yes, that's true, but I'm not trying to cripple tumblers down, I'm just trying to make the combat proficiency of the defender to matter somehow against tumblers without over complicating things much, and by the numbers this seems to work.

Yes, the rogue seems to be the king of tumbling by taking the ability to take 10 on said skill check, but, that's just the rogue, you have plenty of other tumblers around, the monk and it's uber speed, the ninja and his acrobatic bonus, the swashbuckler and his... well just the swashbuckler, etc. I think it's ok if the Rogue can take 10 on his tumble checks to tumble pass a Huge Dragon, what I'm not ok is that said Rogue has stopped putting ranks in Tumble cause it's no longer necessary, cause the DCs are static and not dependent on the enemy.

Although speaking truthfully, best mechanic I can think of is an opposed roll: Tumble vs BAB check, but it might slow down the game unnecessarily.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 09:39 PM
Yes, the rogue seems to be the king of tumbling by taking the ability to take 10 on said skill check, but, that's just the rogue, you have plenty of other tumblers around, the monk and it's uber speed, the ninja and his acrobatic bonus, the swashbuckler and his... well just the swashbuckler, etc. I think it's ok if the Rogue can take 10 on his tumble checks to tumble pass a Huge Dragon, what I'm not ok is that said Rogue has stopped putting ranks in Tumble cause it's no longer necessary, cause the DCs are static and not dependent on the enemy.
We're apparently talking a core only game, so the only other tumbler is the monk...

And given how easy it is to boost skill rolls vs BAB, he'd still probably pass easily.

Max tumble DC is 30, right?

23 ranks + 3 dex + 2 MW item +2 synergy = +30

So your change makes the monk spend... 50 gp on a masterwork item.

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 09:41 PM
The issue I have with the 10+BAB DC is that a Rogue can take 10 from level 10 onwards, and have level+3 ranks in a skill, then synergies, then items on top of that, while your BAB is always going to be 10+level.

At lower levels? The highest DC will be 19, and that's pretty easy a tumble DC to bypass.

This fix makes it harder for someone with cross class ranks to tumble past something, but classes without tumble generally don't put enough skill points into it to tumble well even with the old fixed DC system.

Given that the intent was never to make a dedicated Tumbler Rogue with Skill Mastery fail his checks without other effects in place, I think this is all ok. Everyone else but the dedicated Tumbler Rogue do have notable difficulty making some checks (especially fast movement), and you can even catch the dedicated Tumbler when he gets careless (and tries to move at +10 past multiple guys in difficult terrain).

Of course, increasing DC by +2 for each square you Tumble past could also work, but it'd definitely favor reach weapon fighters even more than presently. We also have to be wary of not making the monster Tumble DCs too hard (with just the suggested rule, fast moving past Tarrasque is barely doable just with item-based bonuses on 20).


The AoO vs. Tumble- and Reflex save-approaches do have the advantage of the natural 20s, making Tumbling never completely safe. But if our goal is to make more skilled Fighters harder to avoid while still ensuring that a character who invests heavily in Tumble can consistently make his checks, I think we've got a winner.

Typewriter
2009-07-14, 09:46 PM
The issue I have with the 10+BAB DC is that a Rogue can take 10 from level 10 onwards, and have level+3 ranks in a skill, then synergies, then items on top of that, while your BAB is always going to be 10+level.

At lower levels? The highest DC will be 19, and that's pretty easy a tumble DC to bypass.

This fix makes it harder for someone with cross class ranks to tumble past something, but classes without tumble generally don't put enough skill points into it to tumble well even with the old fixed DC system.

Yeah, but that makes it worth continually putting points into. In order for it to always be effective it requires maintenance, which is a good thing.

I personally think this is about right, I think it should be fairly easy to beat, just not as easy as it is laid out RAW.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 09:51 PM
Didn't Tumble also require a fairly high maintainable under the old rules, incase you had to move through multiple opponents, in rough terrain, move at full speed, etc?

Gnomo
2009-07-14, 09:52 PM
So your change makes the monk spend... 50 gp on a masterwork item.
And a ton of skill points.

Dude, we're not trying to shut down the tumblers, we're just trying to make things more fair, if you want to tumble pass anything you have to spend some resources. The whole idea is not to kill the rogue and monk's possibility to tumble past an enemy, the idea is to make the BAB matter against characters who might want to abuse tumbling.

Your monk will have a chance of failing a full speed tumbling against a 20th level fighter with this houserule, the DC is now 40 when before it was just a plain 25. Yes, you can still do it if you spend enough resources on it (many skill points, some gp and/or taking skill mastery which means you're at least a 10th level rogue), if you want to do it you still can, but not at a ridiculously low price.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-14, 09:57 PM
It's still a fairly low price, though.

My main criticism is that this doesn't seem like much of a fix. It makes it slightly more difficult to tumble, but by an amount that's not likely to matter much in most games.

The OP was complaining about rogues cartwheeling past fighters, and this is still an issue that's unresolved.

Unless he was joking or something. Which he might have been.



Your monk will have a chance of failing a full speed tumbling against a 20th level fighter with this houserule,

At that level, half speed means 45 ft for the monk, which is fairly decent, so the chances of a monk needing to do that isn't so great.

Eldariel
2009-07-14, 09:59 PM
Didn't Tumble also require a fairly high maintainable under the old rules, incase you had to move through multiple opponents, in rough terrain, move at full speed, etc?

The DC for fast movement was rarely if ever over 32. That means you were able to stop at ~15 ranks given item- or major stat-based boosts, or Skill Mastery, so that means you max out around level 12. The exception is fast moving over creatures, but given that it's basically never more than 10' ('cause Medium creature can be in the same square as a Huge creature), that's usually doable too.

And this is assuming you want to fast move on difficult surfaces (without access to flight or such, obviously) past multiple guys. Most people can get by hitting that 17 consistently.

Typewriter
2009-07-14, 10:01 PM
I thought that the idea was not to fix it and take away usefulness, but instead to fix the flaw that it didn't scale at all based off the person everyone is tumbling around. It doesn't change a lot, but it makes more sense, and that was the goal. I still think an opposed check of some kind would work(and my players tend to like being allowed to roll against something), but it's no biggie.

At least with this you won't have an army of level 1 monks running past a warrior whose just sitting there picking his nose :)

Twilight Jack
2009-07-15, 10:33 AM
It's still a fairly low price, though.

My main criticism is that this doesn't seem like much of a fix. It makes it slightly more difficult to tumble, but by an amount that's not likely to matter much in most games.

The OP was complaining about rogues cartwheeling past fighters, and this is still an issue that's unresolved.

Unless he was joking or something. Which he might have been.



At that level, half speed means 45 ft for the monk, which is fairly decent, so the chances of a monk needing to do that isn't so great.

The OP (hey, that's me!) was complaining about rogues double saltoing past fighters 10 levels higher than them without any appreciable risk. I'm fine with a dedicated rogue being able to make it past a fighter of equal level. I think the numbers check out.