Tumble problems

[Dandu]

Allow me to directly address the question you asked me and be frank: I find your logic irritating. You assumed that Tumble involved acrobatics without any real justification other than your biases and then continued to cling to them despite the proof to the contrary. The penalties you proposed you excluded from other activities that logically would suffer the same problems, such as grappling - surely a fighting style that involves rolling around the ground wrestling with an opponent will suffer gear related difficulties?

You also have failed to address people who have pointed out how Tumbling could be done without backflips. Here's a post talking about it. Go for it, address the points you asked for.

I suppose you will suggest I stop reading your threads if they annoy me so much, and I probably should, but I entered into this without knowing much about you. Clearly, a mistake.

 

[Water Bob]

Allow me to directly address the question you asked me and be frank: I find your logic irritating.

OK, well stop holding your own feet to the fire.

You assumed that Tumble involved acrobatics without any real justification other than your biases and then continued to cling to them despite the proof to the contrary. The penalties you proposed...

Not that I need to justify myself, I started this thread to discuss skill and see how other GMs view it. Doesn't mean I'm going to agree. Doesn't mean I won't. Doesn't mean I won't go off in an entire new direction.

Since you seem so interested in my game, you might be glad to know that I haven't implemented any changes to RAW. I'm just mulling stuff over.

That's kinda what some of these threads are for, wouldn't you say?

You also have failed to address people who have pointed out how Tumbling could be done without backflips. Here's a post talking about it. Go for it, address the points you asked for.

Since I haven't made any real decisions, there's really nothing to say. I'm not sure where I stand on this whole Tumbling issue. As I said, the thread was started, as indicated in the OP, to discuss Tumbling and, specifically, for me come to a decision.

That decision is not urgent because I don't have any tumblers among the PCs. I was asking for NPCs.

I suppose you will suggest I stop reading your threads if they annoy me so much, and I probably should, but I entered into this without knowing much about you. Clearly, a mistake.

Kinda like a bad car wreck, huh? You don't want to look, but you just have to? Dirty laundry. It's something in the human make-up.

I agree with what you say here. Dude, if I piss you off, then stay away from me!

Relax a little. Let the wind blow through your hair.

Remember, it's a game. Chill out.

 

[Jimlock]

i have something to say, without any intention to take sides...or throw oil into the fire, so to speak.

While I agree with Celebrim on his views on tumble for i have posted i similar post myself, and while i agree with Celebrim and Dandu as to how holistic such an approach (Water Bob's) should be (by taking into account more actions than tumble), i think that we failed to bring forward the fact that, by SRD, tumble is a skill that can be used both for evasive maneuvers in combat, and as a way to "perform".

Does this mean that the same character uses the same flip-flopy-summersaulty moves for both uses of the skill? Maybe... but I would "tend" to say no, and would probably rule that the same character can use in-combat tumble without penalties while carrying his adventuring gear, but when this character wants to tumble in front of an audience so as to entertain, he better not be carrying his swords and shields.
...But even if this ruling might have some "logic" into it, who's to say what each characters tumble-style looks like? For what is certain, is that in such a varied world different characters are certainly going to have different tumble styles. And while a character's in-combat tumble style might be some simple/down-to-the-ground yet effective one so as to evade blows, another's in-combat style might as well look like Pris' in Blade Runner, or even like chuckie chan's drunken style. At this point, this is where flavor, style and mood comes in, and the DM has to make choices as far as "what tumble styles do i want in my game" is concerned. Personally i want to stick to Western Europe/Medieval-Dark Ages, therefore i do not incorporate oriental styles. That's not to say that i disallow summersaulting diving etc, but i certainly don't have any ninja moves in my game. Tumble is such a varied skill style-wise, that you can picture it/use it, both as player and a DM, however you choose. I can easily picture Tumble in an oriental campaign, being far more flashy, full of incredible moves even during combat, but i do not necessarily have to incorporate it like that in my own game.
I say all this because Water Bob, in his original post, stated how he cannot see Tumble in a Tolkien-esque universe. Well that's true... if you put chukie chan in the LOTRs...well its not very appealing, but the point remains that you can use Tumble however you please, so that it doesn't break your "in-game" realism. Chukie chan's tumble-style isn't LOTRs tumble-style, Pris' Tumble-style isn't either... but Legolas' tumble style is. I assure you that if you ever played out the scene were Legolas gets on the Oliphant, all rolls Legolas would be rolling would be tumble ckecks (along with some climb + balance ones...). Even if that's too flashy or Hollywood-like for anyone, he can rule tumble to be even simpler than this... it's all in the hands of the DM.

IMO, sometimes we call up realism, when we are actually referring to our "in-game" realism or even to our gaming style/mood/theme...

 

[Water Bob]

i have something to say, without any intention to take sides...or throw oil into the fire, so to speak.

There is no fire here, brother. I'm just an old GM, some-what new to d20, looking for a way to include a crazy-ish skill in my simulationist game.

The floor is yours.

...tumble is a skill that can be used both for evasive maneuvers in combat, and as a way to "perform".

I do understand that.

Does this mean that the same character uses the same flip-flopy-summersaulty moves for both uses of the skill? Maybe... but I would "tend" to say no,

I'm not so sure...which is what I was trying to delve into in starting this thread.

...But even if this ruling might have some "logic" into it, who's to say what each characters tumble-style looks like?

We do. The GM and the players of the game. We agree what the rule represtents--what it's "simulating", if you will--although that definition may be different between gaming groups.

For example, if a rule says a character can so something simply by rolling high, many gaming groups are good with that. "I rolled really high on Hide Skill. Even with all the penalties, I can't be seen."

"You're standing on a rocky plateau. There's no grass, no trees, no shrubs, no boulders, and its noon with a blue sky. The only way I can make that roll make sense is to make your character prone and the searcher not spend a lot of time looking in your direction."

A high roll on a skill, even if the book says you can do it, is not enough for me. I want to know how its being done, and if it doesn't make sense, then we've got a problem.

In other groups, the fact that the character rolled the high Hide is enough. They don't sweat the details. And, they move on.

I've got my reasons for not playing that way (I hate a game that focuses on dice throws, for one reason, rather than the experience the player has in the fantasy world--I don't want him thinking about hit points--I want him thinking about how hard that mace just felt when it hit him.)

I assure you that if you ever played out the scene were Legolas gets on the Oliphant, all rolls Legolas would be rolling would be tumble ckecks (along with some climb + balance ones...). Even if that's too flashy or Hollywood-like for anyone, he can rule tumble to be even simpler than this... it's all in the hands of the DM.

Well, yes, like all rules and the entire game. The GM is the Rulebook.

And, this rulebook is trying to figure how it defines a "tumble".

I still don't quite have a picture in my head. I certainly don't want Prince of Persia. And, yes, some of Legolas' moves were parts in the movie where I rolled my eyes and said to myself, "Really? He's Spiderman now?"

 

[Jimlock]

There is no fire here, brother. I'm just an old GM, some-what new to d20, looking for a way to include a crazy-ish skill in my simulationist game.

You see... you take "a priori" tumble as a crazy-ish skill. A lot of people have posted here so as to explain how they treat tumble, including myself, saying how you can incorporate it in your game without breaking the realism of it.

Moreover, there is no house ruling involved. Its all a matter of how you picture it. You can treat it as "simulatory" or as crazy-ish as you wish without changing any rules. If the crazy moves get in the way of your game's realism, just treat it like a defensive skill/technique that helps a character avoid AoOs.

Me, personally, i tend to employ tumble for many a situation, not just avoiding AoOs. ...when a character wants to swing from a chandelier so as to kick someone in the face... when a character wants to roll in-between the feet of a large monster (that one does involve AoOs)... when a character wants to pass over a gap by "walking" the side wall for a while.... when he swings from rope so as to land someplace..... there are many MANY situations where a character can use tumble... depending on his style and his experience (ranks in tumble)... as you can imagine the DCs set for such things are not so low so as to allow everybody to do them.
The nice thing is that IMO it allows for PCs and NPCs alike to USE the terrain around them. This brings to life the environment in which PCs and NPCs alike fight, chase, perform, Role-play etc...

Using Tumble, is one of the best ways to bring your fantasy "world" to life.

...........

[You should also check out the various tumble related skill tricks in Complete Scoundrel. Perhaps it well help understand the "spirit" of the skill]
.....

that's as far as tumble is concerned. Now... since you bring up Hide... there's a nice thread about it in which people, including myself, have shared some interesting opinions.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/304358-how-strict-hide-checks-4.html

I think that my last post on this thread covers enough of what you say/think about the skill.

 

[Hassassin]

when a character wants to roll in-between the feet of a large monster (that one does involve AoOs)...

With me that's just a "crit" when moving through an opponent's area with normal Tumble rules.

(Natural 20 isn't a critical or even automatic success in skills, but I sometimes describe a critical success when DC is beaten by 10.)

 

[Jimlock]

With me that's just a "crit" when moving through an opponent's area with normal Tumble rules.

(Natural 20 isn't a critical or even automatic success in skills, but I sometimes describe a critical success when DC is beaten by 10.)

SRD:

Tumble DC:25

Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy. Check separately for each opponent. Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.

 

[Celebrim]

Allow me to directly address the question you asked me and be frank: I find your logic irritating. You assumed that Tumble involved acrobatics without any real justification other than your biases and then continued to cling to them despite the proof to the contrary.

You mean, other than the fact that the skill is called 'Tumble'?

And, 'proof'? I don't think I offered any proof. I offered what I thought was a useful opinion, but it hardly consitutes proof.

 

[Dandu]

You mean, other than the fact that the skill is called 'Tumble'?

Perhaps "flamboyant acrobatics" would have been a better phrase?

And, 'proof'? I don't think I offered any proof. I offered what I thought was a useful opinion, but it hardly consitutes proof.

Well, the proof part wasn't directed at you per-se, just at whoever pointed out that the description of Tumble allowed for more than cartwheels.

Moving on.

One of the problem with a highly simulationist game using D&D is that the system was never meant to be used as such. For example, look at the spell component rules. Now look at how spell component management is handled (hint: read the item description of the spell component pouch). I'll wait.

 

[WHW4]

Steady, Gentlemen...

WB, I noticed you used the Hide skill a couple of times as an example of making sure the setting is more important than rolling high, and being an avid rogue-type player, I feel the need to back up what Dandu said about the rules supporting and governing hiding behind things. You need cover and/or concealment to hide, unless you have the Hide in Plain Sight ability (which is clearly an example of "superheroic skill," and is a corner case in and of itself.)

I grock Conan. I grock him a lot, actually. He does some truly amazing things in the stories (leaping out of a tower window with a kicking and screaming Devi over his shoulder, still brandishing his sword comes to mind). At the same time, the setting is very visceral and death comes abruptbly to many. It's almost a juxtaposition of "heroic" -and- "grim'n'gritty." It's pulp, actually.

I guess what I'm driving at, WB, is where exactly do you draw the line? Is it ok for someone to scale the sheer battlements of a mountain fortress with their bare hands, finding the nooks and crannies only a mountain-born Cimmerian could find? Is it then not ok for that same Cimmerian to duck under a wicked slash of an enemy's blade and tumble backwards, coming up with his sword in hand?

Honestly just curous - I only have beefs with GMs when they change what my character can do simply "because that doesn't make sense to me." What makes logical sense can be VERY subjective, as I think this thread has illustrated nicely.

NOT leveling that claim at you, mind you, but this whole discussion sort of reminds me of the time a foe closed in with one of our bow-wielding party members, and her only recourse was to try and stab the attacker with an arrow. The rules supported it (3.5) but they were told "the arrow would break, sorry you're not Legolas." Boy did that irk me something fierce.