Tumble problems

[Starbuck_II]

Hmm... I have no problem with using Tumble for any of those situations. But, it seems like Tumble is really meant for characters who don't wear armor or wear only light armor.

In my rulebook (which could be different from yours), the very first line says: You cannot use this skill if our speed hs been reduced by armor, excess equipment or loot.

That right there prevents the fighter in plate from rolling "in-between the feet of a large monster".

Unless it was a Dwarf: dwarfs are never slowed by armor.

Also, I've never tripped over untied shoes. It seems physicall impossible unless you walk with a weird gait. Others stepping on laces makes some sense though.

 

[WHW4]

I disagree with the statement that this thread has illustrated nicely what it is to tumble. See the top of this post.

I didn't mean it illustrates what it means to tumble. I meant it illustrates that what people consider to make sense is very subjective. In other words, we all have opinions and they differ.

I would have rewarded that--very "cool", cinematic play. It would have been a shining moment in my game.

You have to remember, though. It is IMPOSSBILE to agree with your GM 100% of the time unless YOU ARE THE GM.

People are people. Aspects of the game are subjects. Difference of opinion WILL happen.

You elected to play with your GM. Now stand by that decision whether you agree with one or two of his calls, or not.

Because you're always going to disagree with something he does.

Yes but this was something that came up right then and there, not a houserule we had discussed before hand or a setting contrivance that was agreed upon by the group. This was a kneejerk, "My badguy wants to hurt someone, you found a way to fight back that is backed up by the rules; therefore I disallow your tactic and hereby lay the smack down." I voiced my disagreement, showed him where their use as an improvised weapon was explicitly laid out in the text, then was overruled. I said "Agree to disagree, but I expect the badguys to be unable to do the same." That was that.

When I make a character, I can only assume that what is printed in the book I create my character from is what I can expect out of him in actual play. I shouldn't have to pepper the GM with corner case what-ifs just to get an idea of what my character is capable of.

Probably why I dislike most houserules myself.

 

[Jimlock]

Hmm... I have no problem with using Tumble for any of those situations. But, it seems like Tumble is really meant for characters who don't wear armor or wear only light armor.

In my rulebook (which could be different from yours), the very first line says: You cannot use this skill if our speed hs been reduced by armor, excess equipment or loot.

That right there prevents the fighter in plate from rolling "in-between the feet of a large monster".

Yes it does prevent the fighter in plate to do it. Isn't that as realistic as you want it?

And, would you allow a character wearing a backpack with 40 lbs of gear in it to "roll in-between the feet of a large monster" even if the acutal weight kept the character at a light load due to his STR?

That backpack wouldn't get in the way? At least draw a penalty modifier to the Tumble throw? (That's what I'd do...allow it, but throw in a circumstance penalty, probably -2).

Yes i would. If he can carry 40lbs (STR12) without a being encumbered, if his joints can move freely (by not wearing armor) and if he can pull off a DC 25 check... well that tells me enough about his capabilities... A character who does such things has enough experience and skill (ranks) to deal with the weight and mass on his body so as to pull off such feats. There is nothing unrealistic about it. I can even see a real-life experienced tumbler doing such things.

If you find this unrealistic, i can't see how a -2 on the check turns things real.

As far as the fighter goes, i can see how it bothers you that he can't get away from blows as easily as a tumbler. You are correct, there is some controversy there. Still no matter the controversy, this is where game-balance comes into play. If you give the fighter in your game the ability to evade blows the way a rogue does.. well you've got a weaker rogue. Keep in mind, that while a fighter is a fighter, a rogue is a fighter as well... just a different type of fighter.
By following your logic, one could argue the following:
How is it that a rogue knows where it hurts and thus, deals extra damage(SA), while an equally experienced fighter doesn't ?
IMO the game works fine as it is. The fighter in comparison to the rogue, is a warrior who relies more on brute force, while the rogue relies more on speed. The fighter finds it more difficult to evade blows, while the rogue does it better.

 

[Greenfield]

While we normally envision Tumbling as highly acrobatic maneuvers like handsprings and flips, like we see in Hong Kong wirework movies, remember that it can also include simple evasive maneuvers of the bob-n-weave variety.

Now if an individual DM wants to include a bulky gear penalty of 1 per 10 pounds carried, I could see that. I could also see the presumption that the person who can make that DC 25 Tumble check knows how to stow their gear so as not to ruin their balance or encumber their movements too badly.

 

[Jimlock]

No. As long as we've swerved over into a discussion of balance, under RAW, tumble is underpowered as written. That's because in RAW skills are typically very minor in scope, resulting in situations where skills become less useful as the game goes on and magic items and spells become more common. Flight is better than climb and balance, invisibility is better than hide, polymorph self is better than swim, detect lie is better than sense motive, commune is better than knowledge, freedom of action is better than escape artist and so forth. The fact that Tumble is one of the more useful RAW skills only suggests how weak the skills typically are and how little attention was paid to spells that allow you to emulate high skill.

hmmmmm..... that is a very interesting subject, that perhaps deserves a thread of its own. However, since it has been brought up here, i'll share my two cents.

Skills, are generally underpowered in respect to magic, and that is only natural... for magic is magic.
However, what in fact weakens the skills in comparison to magic, is the ABUNDANCE OF MAGIC.

I disagree on your assumption that skills are minor in scope. If skills are given the right attention, and if they are used properly in the game, one can achieve many a great feat. Provided that one is experienced/skilled enough (portrayed by his ranks) one can jump over enormous distances, one can climb at the speed of an ape, one can have you believe whatever he wants, one can have you believe he is whoever he wants, one can be aware of anything happening around him, no matter how irrelevant, small or silent.... skills can do great things.....

Spells can do all the above and more. Point is... how abundant is magic in the world? Are there wizards/clerics/sorcerers/etc... in every corner of the city? Are there magical items in every store in town? How easily can a wizard obtain his spells? Can he learn any spell he wants, whenever he wants, just by declaring that..."i gained a level in wizard...therefore i get this spell and that one.." Does a cleric's deity allow the use of every spell there is? Does the deity interfere with a cleric's actions...his spell casting power?...Can a caster take the form of any beast there is (transmutation) in the monster manuals just by declaring it?...or is it required that he has seen/experienced in some way the very beings he imitates?

If i could name one single thing that can break a game is this... Abundance of Magic. I have seen/played games full of magic as well as games where the DM keeps a tight leash on magic (i myself play that way as a DM) and boy... is there a difference.... I have concluded, a long time ago... that its the best way to keep a game balanced. That way, skills are important, martial classes are important, and spell-casters are not gods that can break any game after a certain level.

I've been playing D&D since the mid 90s... I've started with 2e, read most of its books, played like crazy... I've read a few 1e books just for the kicks of it, even though i've never played anything prior to 2e... now i only play 3.5... even though i miss 2e so much........
Throughout my experience with D&D....somehow..... i've mostly played in campaigns (both as player and as DM) where magic was well controlled....... i don't know if its just me, but i've always had the impression that the books are speaking about how magic should be contained... how it is not something that is out there for every one to get his hands on. Certainly this wasn't/isn't mediated through actual rules but its hinted in the books ... the D&D novels... perhaps its just me... but i see it everywhere...

....Just because the books have all the spells... all the magical items possible... that doesn't mean they are "a volonte" for everyone to take... just because he can afford the price or the level...

What makes magic magical is how rare it is...otherwise it loses its magic...

 

[Water Bob]

Yes but this was something that came up right then and there, not a houserule we had discussed before hand or a setting contrivance that was agreed upon by the group. This was a kneejerk, "My badguy wants to hurt someone, you found a way to fight back that is backed up by the rules; therefore I disallow your tactic and hereby lay the smack down." I voiced my disagreement, showed him where their use as an improvised weapon was explicitly laid out in the text, then was overruled. I said "Agree to disagree, but I expect the badguys to be unable to do the same." That was that.

Well, I agree with you on the situation as you've described it. But, I'm also a firm believer in that there can only be one person "in charge" of a game with the final decision, and that person is the GM.

Sounds like he didn't handle it in a good way, and maybe he's a bad GM. Or, maybe he's a good GM with a bad moment.

Dunno. Right or wrong, though, I believe the GM's word is the law.

Probably why I dislike most houserules myself.

I tend to run a very close to RAW game myself. That way, everyone knows what to expect.

While we normally envision Tumbling as highly acrobatic maneuvers like handsprings and flips, like we see in Hong Kong wirework movies, remember that it can also include simple evasive maneuvers of the bob-n-weave variety.

One of the differences in the Conan RPG, which I play, and the D&D game, which we're discussing, is that the Conan game has three types of Defense. He can do nothing, in which case he's AC 10. Or he can Dodge. Or he can Parry.

In D&D, that's all one big thing rolled up into your AC.

So, when you say "simple evasive maneuvers of the bob-n-weave variety", that's Dodging. That's not tumbling.

I also think that "simple evasive maneuvers of the bob-n-weave variety" is what's happening with the abstract AC number in D&D. That's part of why it goes up as the character gets more experienced.

Which means that Tumble is something else.

Now if an individual DM wants to include a bulky gear penalty of 1 per 10 pounds carried, I could see that. I could also see the presumption that the person who can make that DC 25 Tumble check knows how to stow their gear so as not to ruin their balance or encumber their movements too badly.

What I'd like to do most is think of Tumbling in a reasonable way and not have to make any changes to RAW. I'm just finding that very hard to do.

 

[Celebrim]

hmmmmm..... that is a very interesting subject, that perhaps deserves a thread of its own.

Probably.

Skills, are generally underpowered in respect to magic, and that is only natural... for magic is magic. However, what in fact weakens the skills in comparison to magic, is the ABUNDANCE OF MAGIC.

That you address me in this way means that you have started off making some very wrong assumptions about me and my game, so many in fact that I won't have time to correct them all. Some facts about my game though:

a) I tend to in an average session expect more skill checks to be made that attack rolls.
b) I play a low magic game. The PC's in my current party have hit 4th level, and between them they have 2 magic weapons and no magic armor.
c) NPC spellcasters beyond the 7th level of ability are very rare. In the current nation of 300,000 individuals, only 2 wizards, 1 shaman, and 1 cleric exceed that ability. None are above 9th level. Only one of those do I expect the PC's to interact with, and he's the BBEG.
d) PC wizards gain no spells as a result of gaining levels. Every spell they desire they must obtain through effort.
e) Beyond the level of a few potions, scrolls, and inexpensive items that can be created by 3rd level wizards (like lamps that shed continual light) magic items are not purchable in my game.

And yet, even with those as my default assumptions, I still contend that without rule changes from the RAW, skills are minor in scope and utility and would be vastly overshadowed by magic. Because, as you yourself agree, "Spells can do all the above and more."

Your wrong about how this ends up balancing on two basic counts. First of all, it doesn't matter how abundant magic is in the world, it only matters how abundant it is in the party. By 10th level or so, there is little that you can do with a skill that won't be overshadowed by what your colleague can do with magic. Secondly, while its true that at low levels spell-casters depend more strongly on magic than martial classes, by 10th level or so the reverse becomes true. Without magic no one can defend themselves, and its the spell-casters that are never without magic. Thus, sticking to the RAW, at some point your low magic game starts to constrain those without magic even more than those with it.

I've been playing D&D since the mid 90s...

Just since we are laying out our credentials, I've been playing D&D since the early 80s.

 

[Celebrim]

So, when you say "simple evasive maneuvers of the bob-n-weave variety", that's Dodging. That's not tumbling...What I'd like to do most is think of Tumbling in a reasonable way and not have to make any changes to RAW. I'm just finding that very hard to do.

I'm inclined to agree that Tumbling is not simple dodging manuevers, but I think that there is still a vast middle ground between "simple evasive manuevers of the bob-n-weave variety" and the sort of extreme showy performance centered acrobatics that have been used as visual examples hitherto.

I really think Tumbling means literally tumbling, but it doesn't have to be the full flips and backflips of stage combat or gymnatics. And for realisms sake it can't be the sort of predictable extreme moves that leave one blind to and unable to react to developing threats and which leave one off balance and unable to rapidly change direction.

In combat terms, this to me means things employing things like the acrobatic manuevers of capoeria, northern shoalin, and zui quan, the clean movement techniques of parkour, as well as flashy forms of evasion like knee slides, barrel rolls, and controlled somersalts. Sure, the person who can do this can also probably preform the unnecessary flourishes of free running, the outlandish jumps and wheels of wuxia, and the atheletic feats of gymnastics, but all that is part of the performance of looking good and has little to do with what they are doing to make one miss.

The results of knowing more about moving your body gracefully and in unnatural ways means that you are better able to do basic dodging when you concentrate on it (simulated by the bonuses you recieve fighting defensively), and are able to make a fighter miss by suddenly changing the position of your body in an unexpected way when he begins his attack. You don't start a combat tumbling pass by tumbling. The basic rules of protecting yourself in combat still apply, but you have more tools in your arsenal to remove yourself from the line of the opponents attack while still making forward progress (as opposed to the withdraw, parry, riposte taught in more orthodox fighting techniques). You are also able like a person skilled in parkour to fall well and use a roll to dissipate your energy slowly, reducing the damage you take from falls. In my game you are also able to do things like quick stand into a fighting position (stand up as a free action), as well as roll back to your feat when tripped or thrown (stand up as an immediate action).

And all of this makes a lot of sense to me. But I can definately see that if you are trying to run a realistic game and all that can come to your mind is the flip scene in blade runner, gymantics, and the unnecessary (and counterproductive) tumbling from wuxia and stage combat that the whole thing doesn't make much sense.

 

[Water Bob]

I've got an idea.

Can anybody describe or link a Tumbling move from a movie? I'm not talking about the wild stuff in Prince of Persia. I'm talking about a move that you think is "Tumbling" but isn't all back and hand flips.

Can anyone show me in a movie (or just describe the scene--I've seen a bunch of movies)--what they think of when a character uses Tumble in the game?

 

[Dandu]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5yk7gkwnyM"]YouTube - Drunken Master 2 - Final Fight[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JYNznbL0Q"]YouTube - Jackie Chan's First Strike - Fight Scene[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdnCwym0uPs&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Jackie Chan - Fight Rumble In The Bronx[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvionZFGBqA&feature=related"]YouTube - Asian Hawk vs. The four Amazons[/ame]

Note in the last one, he actually fights with a backpack on. It's probably empty, but in D&D a Handy Haversack only weighs 5 pounds.