Fixing Tumble

[dontpunkme]

I'm sure this has been posted and discussed time and time again on these boards, but I don't have a supporter account so I can't search. But what I'm wondering is has anyone come up with a fair solution to the tumble skill. The DC 15 check to tumble past an opponent is just too easy (Assume a 1st level rogue with Dex 16 and max ranks only needs an 8 or better to succeed at tumbling past a high-level fighter).

So possible solutions:
Ready action to attack tumbling opponent (I don't know if this works in RAW, but I'd likely allow it).
Feat - none exists, but one could be created that allows character to make an opposed roll of some sort possibly one of the two house rules proposed below.
House Rule #1- tumble DC = 10 + opponent's BAB; or
House Rule #2 -tumble DC = defender's attack roll.

So give me your critiques of each solution.

 

[timbannock]

As I recall, Tumble vs. DC of 10+BAB (20+BAB to tumble through an enemy's square) was pretty common.

The question, though, is who does this really effect, and how? A lot of solid arguments exist for the Tumble check being rather uncommon for characters other than Rogues and Monks, so many feel that it's sort of a "class feature" of those classes to get an "avoid AoO for free" card. Others think that Tumbling is cheesy, and thus they want to limit its usefulness (i.e. not get rid of it, but make it potentially tougher, like you're proposing).

Remember though that attack rolls can escalate really fast as you level up, and it's not in any way on an even level with skill increases. I'm not a math guy, so you'll want to consult others, but I could see Tumble vs. attack roll becoming a nasty arms race. If the math stacks too heavily against Tumble, then you've just made the skill lose one of it's primary benefits. If the math stacks in favor of Tumble, then it's just that much more important for the Rogues and Monks in your game to dump Skill Focus and all of their skill points on it, in which case the same results that you are trying to mitigate still exist.

Also important: will you and your players remember the house rule? My players didn't, so we just said "to hell with it" and ran it per RAW. Honestly, the game did not suffer for it. YMMV

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Tumble doesn't need a fix, it's built into the sytem with the assumption that classes based upon mobility like monk and rogue can use it to safely move about the battlefield. Such classes tend to suffer enough in the thick of combat with medium BAB and/or lower BAB than a frontliner. To make Tumble have a significant chance of failure would be to make those kinds of characters unplayable, unless you changed other rules as well.

As to both your solutions, they are both godawful and horrible, and I cannot say that any kinder. Anything that relies on BAB or attack roll is terrible. People argue it represents "skill" and ignore the fact that big dumb zombies and vermin have lots of attack bonus and BAB relative to their CR.

They also seem to think tumble is free. Spending ranks IS a cost. You could have gotten more spot bonus or something, but you chose to invest those skill points in Tumble. Do you have to choose to not increase something else to get your regularly scheduled BAB increase? No. It IS "free" as part of leveling. I consider unfairness to be an argument against such houserules.


That said, we did want to introduce rules to make tumble harder sometimes. We do enforce the higher DC for difficult terrains, and classes like Knight and Crusader that get abilities to hinder or stop tumbling are allowed. I also convinced the group that any counter-tumble rule should be based on...tumble. Quite simply, my argument was that the better you know how to tumble, the better you are at preventing it. When you make one of these tumble checks to prevent an enemy from doing so, you may or may not do acrobatics. It might be as simple as putting yourself in the way at the right moment.

I introduced two new houserules. One that anyone with Tumble trained can attempt:

"When an enemy tries to tumble through your square, you may choose to use an AoO to make a tumble check. If you beat his check result, he fails to enter your square."

The tumbler would have to both beat your result and the regular DC (normally 25). This helps prevent the oft-trotted out scenario of brave knight guarding the king's doorway and the rogue rolling right through his legs.

A more powerful option was added to the Combat Reflexes feat, which we found to be almost never taken and underpowered:
"In addition to it's other benefits, when someone tumbles through a square threatened by someone with Combat Reflexes, the character with Combat Reflexes may spend one of his Attacks of Opportunity for the round to make a tumble check, with a DC equal to the tumbler's tumble check result. If he is successful, the tumbler provokes attacks of opportunity as normal for moving through that square (from both the character with combat reflexes and other characters threatening that square.) The tumbler may choose to stop his motion in that square to avoid AoOs."

These worked for us. YMMV.

 

[frankthedm]

Yes, tumble needs a fix. IMHO getting past someones defenses [AoOs] should be an opposed roll or at the least factor in the defenders skill. the issue gets brought up kinda often.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/204031-anti-tumble-feat-2.html

Even pathfinder wised up about this "skill" with feat like benefits.

This skill can also be used to move past or through opponents without provoking an attack of opportunity. You must make one check per opponent. If you fail your check
when moving past an opponent, you continue to move but provoke an attack of opportunity as normal. If you fail your check when moving through an opponent’s square, your movement ends before you enter the opponent’s space
and you provoke an attack of opportunity as normal.

Situation Base Acrobatics DC1

Move through a threatened area 15 + opponent’s base attack bonus
Move through an enemy’s space 20 + opponent’s base attack bonus

1 This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to
movement. This penalty increases by +2 for each additional
opponent avoided in one round.

House Rule #2 -tumble DC = defender's attack roll.

This is sorta the one i prefer nowadays.

If better than your normal AC, your tumble skill check becomes your AC against you foe's AoO. Add +4 to your tumble check if you have the mobility feat. Add +4 to your tumble check for eachh size class your foe is larger than you.

 

[amethal]

This is sorta the one i prefer nowadays.

If better than your normal AC, your tumble skill check becomes your AC against you foe's AoO. Add +4 to your tumble check if you have the mobility feat. Add +4 to your tumble check for each size class your foe is larger than you.

I like that one, especially how it makes tumbling through a gap between two creatures riskier than just tumbling past one.

Do you allow foes with combat reflexes to force multiple tumble checks (if applicable)?

 

[dontpunkme]

Yeah, I can see how attack roll can get out of hand especially with magic items and feats. Fortunately, my next campaign will probably be in a world where magic items generally are extremely rare. I want to make it so a rogue could tumble past a fighter of equal level on a decent roll, but that the rogue still has some chance of failure.

I'm not sure if I like the opposed tumble check as the only option, seems to cripple fighters who rarely have the skill ranks to invest in any cross-class skill, let alone anything but spot/listen.

Using BAB, I'm not sure if 10+BAB or 15+BAB is more appropriate.
A quick look at math.
Assuming no magic items I'm going to assume a 1st level rogue would have Dex 16, a 10th level would have Dex 18, and a 20th level would have Dex 20 only because it seems appropriate.
Assuming max ranks in tumble, the skill modifiers would be:
Level 1: Tumble 7
Level 5: Tumble 12
Level 10: Tumble 18
Level 15: Tumble 23
Level 20: Tumble 29

Using BAB+10 for a fighter yields:
Level 1: DC 11
Level 5: DC 15
Level 10: DC 20
Level 15: DC 25
Level 20: DC 30
Decently balanced in favor of the rogue, but still the rogue needs to roll really poorly in order for the fighter to have a shot.

Using BAB+15 for a fighter yields:
Level 1: DC 16
Level 5: DC 20
Level 10: DC 25
Level 15: DC 30
Level 20: DC 35
The rogue still needs to roll low in order to fail, but his chances of success are much lower.

Now this doesn't take into account a rogue with tumble as a skill focus, however, a rogue shouldn't have to burn a feat to be an effective tumbler.

Because this would effectively screw rogues and other non-BAB focused classes, I would probably allow people will tumble trained to use their tumble bonus in lieu of BAB.

I like the idea of bonuses applied for smaller size (although I would probably make it a flat +4 regardless of size differences, that is it wouldn't be cumulative for every size category in difference). I also like combat reflexes and mobility giving bonuses to the check. I would probably also allow the rogue to apply his dodge bonus to a specific enemy as a bonus.

Another possible idea is d20+BAB for the defender as the DC. My major concern here is I hate to add extra rolls as it only slows down combat in my experience (which let's face it, can already be painfully slow in 3.5).

 

[timbannock]

Sure, a 1st level Rogue might have a Tumble of +11 (4 dex, 4 skill points, 3 skill focus). And yeah, that means he can tumble past an 11th Level Fighter on a roll of a 4.

Great. He's dodged one AoO that would CERTAINLY kill him if it hit. Awesome.

Next action: Fighter charges the Rogue, attacks, is guaranteed to him the 1st level Rogue's woefully insufficient AC, and kills him. Guaranteed.

Tumble only helps the rogue avoid a single AoO. And to stay on top of his game, the Rogue had to:
1. sink his stats into Dex
2. sink his skills into Tumble
3. sink his feat (either his ONLY feat, or maybe 1 of his 2 is he's human) into Skill Focus
4. At later levels, crank his Dex, crank his Tumble skill (and synergy skills), and buy magic items that help his Dex

For an ability that only helps him against one specific instance, I'd say this is pretty fair.

And your maths are great, but do they take into account the following?

- Penalties from terrain
- Penalties from multiple attackers
- Tumbling THROUGH an occupied square, versus around it (something that might come up in many scenarios if there are hordes of enemies or small fighting spaces)
- Penalties from status conditions
- Negation by status conditions

That's an awful lot of stuff that can limit or outright negate a Tumble roll. It only impacts one situation (AoOs). Is that really unbalanced?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'd still like to know what martial prowess (something not well portayed at all by attack bonus and still not so great by BAB when looking at monster CRs) has to do with stopping a tumbler. I have never once heard a good argument for that. It usually seems to come down to some concept that Fighters should be good at controlling the battlefield around them, more a 4E implant, and something the base class alone does not offer at all. You can take feats to do some of that, like Stand Still. It kind of reminds of the argument that Fighters shouldn't easily succumb to effects like mental domination...even though by the numbers, they will.

My argument is simple: The more you know about tumbling, the better you are at stopping it. Does that mean a regular fighter w/o Tumble as a class skill will be very bad at stopping it? Hells yes! A swashbuckler or Warblade, on the other hand, could become quite good at it. If they train on tumble, they know how to stop it better, too. And outside of core, there are feats a Fighter could take to add Tumble to his skill list. Or you could make a variant Fighter. I have one called the Gladiator, Swashbuckler is sort of like a big ol' variant Fighter....

And as others have thankfully chimed in to support what I said, tumbling past someone is not a big deal. It's not like you just stabbed him with your sword. I have never heard people say Monks or Rogues are broken in combat. Quite the opposite. What do you think removing a part of the game THEY RELY ON -- safely tumbling around -- will do? I don't mind someone putting a little focus on stopping tumbling and who knows it themselves giving such characters a hard time. Will it happen often? No. I don't think it should. But once in a while, when facing a fellow acrobatic dervish, it's fun to be tested.

 

[Nedz]

We just give a target a Reflex save against the Tumble check, as well as applying all of the modifiers of course.
This means that Tumble works normally most of the time, but against targets who are dexterous it can fail.

 

[Hawken]

Most of the solutions here only contribute to the brokenness of 3.x skills in comparing a skill check to something not a skill check (level check, BAB, etc.).

I have two solutions that avoid that issue without changing the overall rules of the Tumble skill.

#1: Opposed Check
Make Tumble, when used to move through threatened/occupied spaces, an opposed check. The tumbler makes his check and every person threatening/occupying a space he moves through makes a check. The tumbler stops at whoever, if anyone, beats his check. But what skill can you use to oppose the check that would be fair to all classes?

The only skill that is a class skill for all classes is Craft, the only other one that comes close is Profession. Neither would be appropriate. So, we select two skills that are class skills for all classes and appropriate to use to challenge a Tumble check. I say Concentration and Jump, every class has either of these as class skills. Concentration allows the person to concentrate on the tumbler, observing their movements and most likely path of movement. A successful check there indicates the character knows where the tumbler is moving and intercepts either placing himself or a weapon in the path of the tumbler to stop their movement. Jump would work along the same lines in that they simply jump in the way of the tumbler and stop him thusly.

This would make tumbling a challenge, not a given the way it is now. Tumblers are still likely to succeed but its no longer an automatic success. Static DCs for skills that increase are poorly devised. This solves that problem.

Solution #2: Modify the Skill Check
The other solution is to give more modifiers to the static tumble DCs than just the +1-2 for terrain or number of people tumbling past/through. What modifiers:

** The initiative modifiers of the people being tumbled past (Dex, plus improved initiative and any other modifiers to the person's initiative score).
** Allow the Stability racial ability for dwarves to increase the DC since Dwarves are basically living breathing brick walls.
** Size: -4 to the DC for every size the target is larger than the tumbler. No modifier for moving past equal or smaller sized targets. And moving through smaller targets would be an overrun or trample and not a tumble check.
** Haste: Add the +4 AC bonus for Hasted targets to the DC of the check. Haste increases their reaction toward incoming attacks, it should also increase their reaction time toward incoming tumblers.

As with my suggestion for the opposed check, this option no longer makes tumbling a given. It is modified based on the ability of the target to react to the tumbler in time to interrupt the tumbling or to just get in their way and stop them that way.

For either suggestion, I'd allow a tumbler with Mobility to add that +4 bonus to his tumble check since mobility is essentially trying to move around/past/through targets without getting hit.

Also, the tumbler is still likely to succeed at his check, but that success is no longer guaranteed and the tumbler that underestimates his opponent is going to find his butt on the ground.

These options should also add a degree of excitement and tension to what has otherwise turned into an automatic, dreaded/boring/ho-hum action.

My only problem with the other suggestions is with what Streamofthesky writes. His reasoning is basically the cheesy quote from old movies that "only a ninja can stop a ninja"--except in this case, only a tumbler can stop a tumbler. That's not even close to being true. And even the ninja thing is proven false by an episode of the Deadliest Warrior that had a Trojan warrior kicking a ninja's ass!

His suggestion that two classes (Knight and Crusader) are able to stop tumblers is puzzling? Why only them? Why not a Fighter (the epitome of combat training) or even a Ranger (the D&D version of Special Forces)? Why not a Barbarian? I could see Arnold--I mean Conan, punching someone or chopping in half someone trying to flip past him! This only makes a couple of classes more powerful and doesn't resolve the issue which lies with the Tumble skill itself.

His two houserules are also poorly devised. First, they rely on his "only a ninja..." premise in that they require other tumblers to use. Second, they further break the tumble skill by causing the tumbler to provoke an AoO that allows a counter-tumble. The purpose of a tumble check is to avoid AoOs. That's why its there. Now making them draw AoOs doesn't balance the skill but only breaks it more.

He further argues that the better a tumbler, the better they are at stopping one. Again, false. Tumblers learn to tumble, they don't learn to stop other tumblers. All anyone needs to do to stop a tumbler is get in their way or put something in their way that throws off their balance or momentum. Anyone can do that. Kids are masters at getting underfoot even when someone is just walking! So, if a child can get in the way WITHOUT training, so could a wizard or paladin or anyone else!

I don't agree with him that monks rely on tumbling, but maybe that's just the games he's been in, not me. I've had dozens of players use tumbling, but I've never had anyone rely on it.

If you don't even want to change the rules but still want to stop a tumbler, use a Ready action. Ready an attack or spell against anyone who starts tumbling toward or by you. They start to tumble, they still get zinged no matter the result of their check!

I'm not arguing for BAB vs. Tumble, but I don't believe Streamofthesky hasn't heard or thought of how combat skill could stop a tumbler. Does he really believe that putting a sword blade in someone's face, a tower shield in front of them (or upside their head if they try to move past you), or just sitting down on someone when they dive between your legs isn't going to stop a tumbler? You don't even need to shield bash someone doing a cartwheel, a light shove will have them eating dirt!

All you have to do is watch just about any MMA fight. Watch someone try to get by a guy good at jiujutsu, that person isn't getting out of his roll or flip without a broken arm or two and not before screaming like a girl! Actually, bad example, MMA fighters are not stupid enough to try something like that against an opponent.

So, yeah, martial prowess has tons to do with being able to stop a tumbler. Its just that the current rules for the Tumble skill do not reflect that. Hence, the OPs reason for starting this thread.