Alt Tumble rules

Tumble: DC15 or 25 to go through occupied square.

So at about 10th level a rogue can auto-tumble around even if it is the uber BBEG.

We have been playing a variant - The opponnent makes an attack role vs. the tumble check. if he "hits" he has the opportunity to make an AoO. He then makes another attack role to see if he hits - vs AC.

This works ok - but adds another 2 dice rolls to already busy combat.

What do other folks use for Tumble? RAW? Something else?

It seems that an expert at Tumbling could be able to block another tumbler. So, you could always have an opposed Tumble check. If the one trying to Tumble by the other fails the check, then an AoO is provoked.

This doesn't work so well against non-tumblers, but even they could make a Dex check. After all, it would take a good Dex to catch some gymnast in mid-twirl as he went by.

Dave

One variant I've seen is that when you try to tumble past someone, you make an opposed roll. Your tumble check vs. 1d20+BAB, which is basically the same as your system, but doesn't take the opponent's other modifiers into account. One thing I like about this approach in general is that it allows the opponent to use things like Action Points that affect a d20 roll.

If you want to avoid the extra roll, you can just set the DC at something like 14 + opponent's BAB. That way if you are trying to tumble past a fighter (or other full BAB class) of your same level the chance of success stays the same (barring magic items) throughout your career.

Vrecknidj said:

This doesn't work so well against non-tumblers, but even they could make a Dex check. After all, it would take a good Dex to catch some gymnast in mid-twirl as he went by.

Click to expand...

Even at low levels, this means the defender will often be in a situation where the will only be successful on a natural 20 (edit: in opposed rolls, ties go to the defender; the tumble roll has to actually be exceeded by the Dex check.) If I'm an experienced warrior, I don't think it would be that hard to impale the twirling gymast on something pointy in mid-air. See the example below.

Sqwonk said:

Tumble: DC15 or 25 to go through occupied square.

So at about 10th level a rogue can auto-tumble around even if it is the uber BBEG.

Click to expand...

Try second level, if they're a dedicated human.
Dex 18 +4
Tumble Ranks +5
5 Ranks in Jump: +2 Synergy Bonus
Feat: Skill Focus [Tumble] +3
Feat: Acrobatic +2

That's a total Tumble skill of 16 (obviously automatically makes a DC 15), average check 26, so 65% of the time an opponent has no chance to beat the Tumble check opposed by a Dex check (and that's assuming an 18 Dex for both characters.) For the remaing 35%, the defender still has to roll very high to beat the Tumble check.

Sqwonk said:

We have been playing a variant - The opponnent makes an attack role vs. the tumble check. if he "hits" he has the opportunity to make an AoO. He then makes another attack role to see if he hits - vs AC.

This works ok - but adds another 2 dice rolls to already busy combat.

Click to expand...

Only one added roll really - the opponent's "check" roll.

But how about this idea I've been thinking of:

The opponent gets an AoO vs. a tumbler as normal. First, have the tumbler make his check. The amount he beats his own AC by on the check is applied as a penalty to the AoO. Normal modifiers to the Tumble Check are applied, and dodge bonuses (such as from the Dodge and Mobility feats, or a dwarf's bonus against giants) are bonuses to the check, not AC, for the purposes of tumbling only.

Tumbling through the opponent's square incurs a -10 penalty to the check. (Kinda steep, though. With this variant, I'd be tempted to make it only a -5.)

Sir Brennen said:

But how about this idea I've been thinking of:

The opponent gets an AoO vs. a tumbler as normal. First, have the tumbler make his check. The amount he beats his own AC by on the check is applied as a penalty to the AoO. Normal modifiers to the Tumble Check are applied, and dodge bonuses (such as from the Dodge and Mobility feats, or a dwarf's bonus against giants) are bonuses to the check, not AC, for the purposes of tumbling only.

Tumbling through the opponent's square incurs a -10 penalty to the check. (Kinda steep, though. With this variant, I'd be tempted to make it only a -5.)

Click to expand...

This is interesting. If I understand this correctly, I think you can simplify it to:

The tumbler's AC against AoO is the better of his regular AC or his tumble check total. The tumble check incurs a -10 penalty when attempting to tumble through the opponent's space.

I would also add something like:
In the latter case, if the tumble check total is not 25 or higher, the tumbler must stop before entering the opponent's space.

EDIT: That should be "15 or higher" since you're taking a -10 penalty. Oops.

I believe the tumble system is fine as is, and here's why:

In dnd, tumble serves one main purpose, to avoid AOOS and get by people. That's ALL it does, it a very specialized skill that a person has to spend points in. A fighter's fighting skill is used for all kinds of things, killing, grappling, disarming, it comes up all the time. Yet...when you start using comparison rolls between tumble and attack rolls (or BAB rolls), you are now saying that a point of tumble is equivalent to a point of attack bonus...but in the ONE place tumble is supposed to do ANYTHING!!

Here's an example:

Chess Master: I study chess day in and day out, everyday.
Amateur: Wow that's nice, I play every so often, but I do a lot of other stuff too.

Chess Master: How did you beat me!!!??
Amateur: Just lucky I guess.


That's the equivalent. You are saying that a person who throws a whole bunch of points into a very specialized skill is no better at doing his thing against a guy who just fights a lot. I mean, that's the very reason he gets tumble in the first place.

Also, let's take a look at the people who use tumble...mainly rogues and monks. For them, taking an AOO is much more likely (lower AC) and much more painful (lower hitpoints) than a fighter. And this gets worse at higher levels. For example, if your saying that a 5th level rogue taking an AOO 50% of the time from a 5th level fighter is equivalent to a 20th level rogue taking an AOO 50% of the time from a 20th level fighter...then your wrong. 20th level fighter do a whole lot more damage than 5th level ones in comparison, and are much more likely to succeed at their AOO. Rogues are fragile at high levels, they can't take that kind of punishment for long.

Ilium said:

This is interesting. If I understand this correctly, I think you can simplify it to:

The tumbler's AC against AoO is the better of his regular AC or his tumble check total. The tumble check incurs a -10 penalty when attempting to tumble through the opponent's space.

I would also add something like:
In the latter case, if the tumble check total is not 25 or higher, the tumbler must stop before entering the opponent's space.

EDIT: That should be "15 or higher" since you're taking a -10 penalty. Oops.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is the version I started out with in my head, but something made me think the difference/penalty to AoO had some other advantage, and now I can't remember why

I think it had to do with the Dodge bonuses, but I see no reason applying them to the Tumble check in this version wouldn't work either.

For tumbling through an opponent's square, I'm still not sure if having a flat DC for success is the way to go. I was thinking of something simpler, like if the AoO hits, then you're stopped right before entering his square.

Sir Brennen said:

Actually, that is the version I started out with in my head, but something made me think the difference/penalty to AoO had some other advantage, and now I can't remember why

I think it had to do with the Dodge bonuses, but I see no reason applying them to the Tumble check in this version wouldn't work either.

For tumbling through an opponent's square, I'm still not sure if having a flat DC for success is the way to go. I was thinking of something simpler, like if the AoO hits, then you're stopped right before entering his square.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Stalker0 makes some good points, but assuming you still want to have it scale, then I think having the AoO stop your movement through the opponent's space would work. You could get into a situation where you succeed when you rolled lousy, however. Say you get a grand total of 15 on your check (not even exceeding your AC). The opponent rolls a 1 on his AoO and you sail right through his space. It makes blocking a path that much more difficult.

And as to Stalker0's objections (which I think are quite valid): My own gripe with the tumble skill is not that you can auto-succeed and that makes it too powerful. It's that you can auto-succeed and never spend another point in it. If a character concept includes tumbling in combat, I'd like to see a good reason to continue developing that skill after, say, 5th level. Maybe what we really need is new uses for tumble that make it worth keeping maxed. I'd like there to be an in-game difference between someone with a +15 modifier and someone with a +25 beyond being able to pass through someone's space with impunity.

One thing I have considered recently is letting you use tumble to negate falls greater than 10 feet. Maybe reduce the effective fall distance by a number of feet equal to your check total - 5 or something. Or maybe let you substitute a tumble check for a Reflex save. I'm just thinking out loud.

Responding to my own post. How rude.

Sir Brennen: Another objection to having the successful AoO prevent movement through the opponent's space is that if the opponent is out of AoO for the round tumblers can move through his space at will. In the group I DM for, there are no fewer than 4 characters with at least a few ranks in Tumble. I'd be pretty annoyed if they baited my big monster's AoO out of him and then all ran past him without even having to roll.

Ilium said:

One thing I have considered recently is letting you use tumble to negate falls greater than 10 feet. Maybe reduce the effective fall distance by a number of feet equal to your check total - 5 or something. Or maybe let you substitute a tumble check for a Reflex save. I'm just thinking out loud.

Click to expand...

Here, have a look at this section for the Epic Level rules in the SRD.

SRD said:

Code:

Task                                                                   DC
Treat a fall as if it were 20 feet shorter when determining damage.    30
Free stand.                                                            35
Treat a fall as if it were 30 feet shorter when determining damage.    45
Climb vertical surface.                                                50
Treat a fall as if it were 40 feet shorter when determining damage.    60
Ignore falling damage.                                                100

Click to expand...