What Tumble variant do you use?

[jontherev]

I think the Problem that IceBear is having (sorry if this is wrong IB) is that tumble is at least crossclassed to everyone... so anyone can throw 2 skill points at it, and even after you add DEX penalties and armour penalities in... the paladin is going to fail the tumble and provoke an AoO... but he still is going to get through a 20ft line of enemies... automatically.

Not if he's wearing non-mithril heavy armor. You can't tumble in heavy armor. He could bullrush instead though, which is "free" (no skill points/feats needed).

 

[mikebr99]

Not if he's wearing non-mithril heavy armor. You can't tumble in heavy armor. He could bullrush instead though, which is "free" (no skill points/feats needed).

Sure... but the thread isn't about how to get through an enemies front lines... it's about the tumble skill.


There has to be some some other penalties for failing a tumble check... one AoO from 2 Orcs as you roll through to get at the leader isn't enough for failing the check by 30 or more...

 

[Noman]

Wow this is getting serious.

I see the same inherent problem with making an attack (or any other checks that lacks a true opposing roll). Like Tumble, if my attack bonus is high enough, it doesn't matter if I'm up against a 1st level Fighter or a 20th Level Fighter (with same armor/stats) -- their mastery in combat does not come into play to help them defend against me. Even if you factor in Expertise, there's still a cap of +/-5, so eventually, as BAB keeps going up, the same problem emerges. (and damn it I refuse to make up the difference using their HP)

So maybe there should be a variant for attacking/defending as well? - where you subtract the defender's BAB (or the attack bonus for defender's weapon/shield) from your attack roll...hmm that's actually not bad.

The thing is, if I try to reason everything to work in a realistic manner, D&D 3rd Edition would just fall apart. Like moving diagonally through square shaped areas. Still, some things are just so broken that it needs fixing, like Tumble, or (in my case) attacking with Epic size BAB.

Well, at least it's fun to talk about it.

 

[IceBear]

But the thing is, if you roll a natural 1 on the attack roll you will miss even if you have +100 on the roll. This, theoretically, will happen 5% of the time. So, ya, it might look like that high level fighter will always hit, but he won't. That's all I want with tumble.

And again, I'm not trying to be "real world realistic" here. I agree with you, when you try to do that with 3E rules you'll go nuts , but I don't like that there's a skill that will automatically allow you to bypass defenders.

Maybe I just need to use a "natural 1 on skill checks auto fails" house rule.

IceBear

 

[mikebr99]

But the thing is, if you roll a natural 1 on the attack roll you will miss even if you have +100 on the roll. This, theoretically, will happen 5% of the time. So, ya, it might look like that high level fighter will always hit, but he won't. That's all I want with tumble.

IceBear

You beat me too it...

if a fighter attacks, and misses, then nothing is accomplished...

if someone (anyone with 2 spare skill points) tumbles and fails the roll... it is only a partial failure... you do incurr an AoO, but you also get by whatever you were trying to get by.

 

[Noman]

But the thing is, if you roll a natural 1 on the attack roll you will miss even if you have +100 on the roll. This, theoretically, will happen 5% of the time. So, ya, it might look like that high level fighter will always hit, but he won't. That's all I want with tumble.

Certainly a good point, but that's not my point. I'm just saying that my chance of success have nothing to do with how skillful my opponent is. This coming from the same reasoning of introducing an opponent's BAB against Tumble. Otherwise, along the same line, why not just make a natural 1 on a Tumble roll to allow an AoO?

 

[IceBear]

Certainly a good point, but that's not my point. I'm just saying that my chance of success have nothing to do with how skillful my opponent is.

But this is exactly my point, most combat actions are not guaranteed in the 3E rules and thus tumbling flies in the face of "3E combat realism"

And this is where we have a difference of opinion, which I'm sure will remain no matter what we say. I *do* think that a 20th level fighter who has been there and seen it all, will be able to react to a tumble attempt better than a blind kobold. Sure, the tumbler might flawlessly tumble, but the reactions of the opponents would be drastically different, and this is not modelled with the current rules. Again, the 3E rules have a concept that the higher the roll the better, so in that view of realism, I have an issue with some getting a -4 on their Tumble check accomplishing exactly the same thing as someone who rolled a 14.

And, as I stated earlier, my pet peeve (we all have them with the rules, you can't tell me there isn't some rule you haven't changed or would like to change) is that I don't like 100% of success. That's why I use an alternative to the exisiting tumbling rules (mostly identical to the S&S version). Someone who has put a lot of ranks into Tumbling will still succeed most of the time, but it's not an assured thing - I like that.

IceBear

 

[Gizzard]

> Except in the case of mid-high level rogues/bards/monks who
> choose to spend a lot of points in tumble (while losing out on
> other useful skills)

As a level 5 Monk, I have +14 in Tumble. Because of the Synergy rules (Balance, Jump), you dont have to ignore your other skills to get to this point. Filling out your Class skills with a slight emphasis on Tumble is all you need. And since Tumble is easily the best skill you have, its not like this is a problem.

So now, +14 is the magic number (unless I want to Tumble through things), I never have to put another point in the skill and I never have to roll the dice again. I'll just say "I Tumble by him" for the rest of my characters life.

Whats more annoying is the Barbarian putting 2 cross-class points into Tumble just to nullify creatures with Reach. With a DEX bonus, he's around a 40% chance to Tumble into combat without taking an AoO. And theres just no downside to it; you just say the magic words - "I Tumble up to him" - and if you fail, you take an AoO you would have taken anyway.

We're playing with the Reflex Save rule and its not like my +14 sucks or is useless. It still means I am quite likely to Tumble by someone without taking damage, but its not a guarantee. Even the Barbarian hasnt wasted his two skill points; he'll still try and Tumble up to Ogres and Trolls. But his chance of success is now much more proportional to the points he spent in the skill.

 

[Noman]

we all have them with the rules, you can't tell me there isn't some rule you haven't changed or would like to change

I use Hex grids.

I didn't mean to trivialize the Tumble flaw by bringing up the other thing. I actually do like the variant with Tumble. And I don't really care about the attack roll flaw - it's only apparent with extremely high BAB (since there's no cap on it's growth, unlike AC...sort of), I just threw it out there for fun. Hell I'm not even sure what's the maximum AC a 20th level munchkin can come up with.

 

[KnowTheToe]

So everyone is aware that Tumble is broken. I had wondered what others thought.

Should tumble have been a feat that gave a bonus to your AC (+2?) as you jump, flip and dance across the floor? To me that makes more sense, you may take the feat multiple times to decrease the chance of getting hit by the AoO. If you get hit make a fort save (DC 10 + Damage) and you continue on your way, otherwise go back to the square you were on before getting hit.