D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Tumble
- Thread starter Delgar
- Start date
IanB
First Post
We use something else that I haven't seen mentioned so far:
10+reflex save or 20+reflex save to go through. It becomes easier against lower level people, but harder against higher stuff, but not so much harder that everyone will always max tumble if they can. Seems to work out alright.
10+reflex save or 20+reflex save to go through. It becomes easier against lower level people, but harder against higher stuff, but not so much harder that everyone will always max tumble if they can. Seems to work out alright.
I might have missed it being mentioned in this thread (I am not too keen on the discussion on static versus opposed), but they definitely did change the way tumble work from 3.0. First of all, you have to make a check for EACH opponent you pass and every opponent after the first increase the DC by 2. Secondly, your movement is halved. If you want normal movement, you will have to take a -10 penalty to your tumble check. Thirdly, they removed max tumbling distance. Fourthly, if you fail to pass THROUGH an enemy square you stop right there and you cannot get past him. In short, tumbling has been nerfed considerably in a good way as far as I am concerned. It now actually pays to spend more ranks into the skill after having reached the +14 on the skill 
Spelling out the penalties for obstructions on the ground and making it impossible in deep bogs is also a good thing. Mind you, I already used those penalties, but they had something arbitrary about them.
As for the discussion on opposed versus static, I think that tumbling is too important for the rogue to function optimally so making it opposed is a risky proposition. It will have effects beyond the immidiately obvious.
Spelling out the penalties for obstructions on the ground and making it impossible in deep bogs is also a good thing. Mind you, I already used those penalties, but they had something arbitrary about them.
As for the discussion on opposed versus static, I think that tumbling is too important for the rogue to function optimally so making it opposed is a risky proposition. It will have effects beyond the immidiately obvious.
Last edited:
Sorry for the resurrection, but thought I'd drop my two cents since I found this thread while looking into Tumble.
Is there any documentation concerning the direction you face when doing an AOO?
I feel like a house rule of stating that an enemy who attempts an AOO is also forced to turn and face the tumbler as he's moving (to make that attack against him), thus will be oriented towards the tumbler, denying the flank (but potentially forcing himself open to other flanks as a result). This makes a failed tumble check a failed flank in a very easy way without changings static dc's or opposed rolls etc.
This should prevent abuse from low tumble ranks, but keep tumbles effectiveness at high ranks.
I feel like it also just makes sense in general with AOO's. You should have to face someone when you attack, even if its only an AOO.
Edit: See my lower post (#67), this is all nonsense!
Is there any documentation concerning the direction you face when doing an AOO?
I feel like a house rule of stating that an enemy who attempts an AOO is also forced to turn and face the tumbler as he's moving (to make that attack against him), thus will be oriented towards the tumbler, denying the flank (but potentially forcing himself open to other flanks as a result). This makes a failed tumble check a failed flank in a very easy way without changings static dc's or opposed rolls etc.
This should prevent abuse from low tumble ranks, but keep tumbles effectiveness at high ranks.
I feel like it also just makes sense in general with AOO's. You should have to face someone when you attack, even if its only an AOO.
Edit: See my lower post (#67), this is all nonsense!
Last edited:
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Thanks!
Yeah, I've seen those unearthed facing rules. I feel like making a few house rules concerning facing would be better than implementing an entire facing rules dynamic. It stands to reason that if flanking is built in to the game, then facing should be considered by the main rules, at least in some limited fashion. As it stands, flanking is said to be when someone is on the opposite border of the square. That implies direction is important.
Unless I am misunderstanding things... This question just came to mind. Tell me, if someone is to your front, and someone flanks your back, is the person to the front ALSO flanking you, by virtue of being on the opposite border of another ally? I hadn't considered that possibility.
I'll try out my idea of having AOO's alter your direction with regard to denying flanks and see how that goes. I'm teaching a bunch of noobs the game, so I doubt I'll see as much tumbling and flanking as I should. My DM skills are rusty too.
Edit: See my next post (#67), this is all nonsense!
Last edited:
Hmmmm.... interesting. Upon further reflection on the documentation, I feel like there are a lot of misunderstandings concerning flanking.
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent."
My interpretation of that definition is as follows:
Flanking is done in pairs, you must have an ally on the opposite border to flank. If you have a threatening ally on the opposite border, you get to flank. As such, both teammates should receive flanking bonus (you have forced this enemy to haphazzardly defend against two people on opposite sides, so he is easier to hit for both of you.)
As such, with this interpretation, a lone rogue who tumbles behind an enemy should not receive a flanking bonus, as far as I can tell. You need an ally to flank.
Yes? No? Maybe so?
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent."
My interpretation of that definition is as follows:
Flanking is done in pairs, you must have an ally on the opposite border to flank. If you have a threatening ally on the opposite border, you get to flank. As such, both teammates should receive flanking bonus (you have forced this enemy to haphazzardly defend against two people on opposite sides, so he is easier to hit for both of you.)
As such, with this interpretation, a lone rogue who tumbles behind an enemy should not receive a flanking bonus, as far as I can tell. You need an ally to flank.
Yes? No? Maybe so?
Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
That's correct.
lol, well said
