D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Tumble

[AuraSeer]

The bit about moving through an enemy's square does seem a little too easy to me, but it hasn't ever come up IMC. It's nearly always easier to go around instead of through the enemy. On the rare occasion that a BBEG needs to block a narrow passage or doorway, he doesn't just stand in it, he uses magic or (oddly enough) closes the door.

As for avoiding AoO, I don't mind the idea of a static Tumble DC. IMO it's similar enough to a mage casting defensively. A mage casting magic missile in combat always rolls against DC 16, regardless of whether he's facing a Com1 or a Ftr100. By the same reasoning, I just consider the tumbler to be "moving defensively," and avoid thinking too hard about it.

I don't think easy tumbling changes tactics very much, either. If the monk wants to dash past the enemy melee line, he's going to go past. Unless the baddie can take him down with a single AoO, he will get through and threaten the back-line caster, and you aren't very well going to stop him. (Attempting a Trip as an AoO can work, but it's risky. A low roll can put the meleer on the ground himself, or at least force him to drop his weapon.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for avoiding AoO, I don't mind the idea of a static Tumble DC. IMO it's similar enough to a mage casting defensively.

Yup - that's the other static DC that irritates me. Tumble and Cast Defensively.

Opposed roll good. Static DC bad.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Yup - that's the other static DC that irritates me. Tumble and Cast Defensively.

Opposed roll good. Static DC bad.

-Hyp.

I don't agree at all. An opposed roll indicates that the skill of both combatants is at issue, but that's not the case with Tumble or Casting Defensively. In both cases, it's the defender (tumbler or caster) who's skill is at issue. Either he drops his defenses, or he manages to accomplish a task while maintaining his defenses at the same time.

A caster basically needs to stop dodging, keeping his eyes on nearby opponents, etc. to focus on casting the spell. The attacker takes advantage of the momentary lapse of the caster's defenses to whack him. If he casts defensively, he's trying to get the spell off, while still keeping his eyes on the nearby fighter at the same time, dodging back away from his attacks, etc. All the onus is on the caster. If he can manage to concentrate on both tasks, he's just as hard to hit as if he hadn't cast a spell at all. If he can't manage to concentrate, then his divided attention provides an opening for the fighter. Whether the fighter is 1st level or 20th level doesn't impact the presence of absence of a hole in the caster's defenses (though it does affect his chances of actually hitting).

Same with Tumbling. A tumbling rogue attempts to move past a fighter while twisting and turning and moving in such a way that he's just as hard to hit as if he were stationary. He's concentrating on moving and putting up a defense at the same time. That requires a tumble check. If he's a good tumbler, he'll be just as hard to hit while he's moving as he is to hit standing still (i.e. no AoO). If he's a bad tumbler, he provides an opening.

If Tumbling requires an opposed check, then so should any AoO. But they don't, because they aren't a contest between two opponents, but rather a matter of one opponent slipping up.

 

[Hardhead]

A caster basically needs to stop dodging, keeping his eyes on nearby opponents, etc. to focus on casting the spell. The attacker takes advantage of the momentary lapse of the caster's defenses to whack him. If he casts defensively, he's trying to get the spell off, while still keeping his eyes on the nearby fighter at the same time, dodging back away from his attacks, etc. All the onus is on the caster. If he can manage to concentrate on both tasks, he's just as hard to hit as if he hadn't cast a spell at all. If he can't manage to concentrate, then his divided attention provides an opening for the fighter. Whether the fighter is 1st level or 20th level doesn't impact the presence of absence of a hole in the caster's defenses (though it does affect his chances of actually hitting).

Same with Tumbling. A tumbling rogue attempts to move past a fighter while twisting and turning and moving in such a way that he's just as hard to hit as if he were stationary. He's concentrating on moving and putting up a defense at the same time. That requires a tumble check. If he's a good tumbler, he'll be just as hard to hit while he's moving as he is to hit standing still (i.e. no AoO). If he's a bad tumbler, he provides an opening.

If Tumbling requires an opposed check, then so should any AoO. But they don't, because they aren't a contest between two opponents, but rather a matter of one opponent slipping up.

I completly disagree.

The situation is not the Tumbler trying to behave exactly as if he was standing still. He can't do that and move at the same time! The situation is, can he dodge the attacks of the attacker, move unexepectedly enough, ect, that the attacker has no chance of hitting him when he should normally be able to.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I completly disagree.

The situation is not the Tumbler trying to behave exactly as if he was standing still. He can't do that and move at the same time! The situation is, can he dodge the attacks of the attacker, move unexepectedly enough, ect, that the attacker has no chance of hitting him when he should normally be able to.

I didn't say standing still. I said stationary. When two people are fighting each other, there's no AoO on either side, because both are putting up an active defense. If one of them drops that active defense to do something else (say, cast a spell), then the other has an chance to strike. The Tumbler is trying to move, while at the same time putting up the same type of active defense he were stationary. Dodging, blocking blows, etc.

If a 1st-level fighter is standing next to a 20th-level fighter, the 20th-level fighter doesn't get an AoO just because he has a really high BAB and should be better able to find holes in his opponent's defense. Why? Because the 1st-level fighter isn't giving him an opening.

Ordinarily, if you move, you are taking your concentration off nearby opponents enough to give those opponents an opening. If you make your Tumble check, you're managing to move, and put up enough defense to deny your opponent an opening. This is completely independent of your foe's level of ability, which is my main point.

Tumbling and Casting Defensively should have no relation to how skilled your enemy is. (And thankfully, don't per the Core rules, 3.0 or 3.5.)

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

I don't think that the tumble skill is going to make or break the rogue. Flanking is not the only way to make a sneak attack. Feinting, blinking, being invisible, and winning initiative are just a few of the other ways that a rogue has to make sneak attacks besides flanking.

Beyond that, the tumble skill isn't that necessary to flank. Spring attack gets rid of the AoO from the primary target. Taking an AoO along the way, or even standing in a flanking position aren't out of the question, either.

I never said that you can never make a flanking attack, but from my play experience not being able to tumble eliminates a LOT of the opportunities, between 25 to 75% depending on the situation. So from my actual play experience yes I do think it has a big effect on the Rogue.

But maybe myself as DM and my DMs as players move the enemies around more than you or your DM does. If I stood in a flanking position I can be sure the enemy is going to take a 5' step back to the side, making me or my partner need to soak up an AoO if we want to flank again.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

If I stood in a flanking position I can be sure the enemy is going to take a 5' step back to the side, making me or my partner need to soak up an AoO if we want to flank again.

What's to prevent you from taking a 5' step of your own on your turn to get back into flanking position? 5' steps don't provoke AoOs...

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

I agree with you Pendragon, and I think the new description of exactly what an AoO is in the 3.5 combat chapter (one of the scanned pages on Gaming Report) supports this view.

 

[Pax]

As for avoiding AoO, I don't mind the idea of a static Tumble DC. IMO it's similar enough to a mage casting defensively. A mage casting magic missile in combat always rolls against DC 16, regardless of whether he's facing a Com1 or a Ftr100. By the same reasoning, I just consider the tumbler to be "moving defensively," and avoid thinking too hard about it.

Not entirely true WRT the DC for the Wizard.

Take the same wizard, and surround him with 8 22d level characters (class for those 8 characters is completely is irrelevant). Give all 8 of those characters the Spellcasting Harrier epic feat; each of them, then, produces an 11-point penalty to all rolls to cast spells defensively.

Effectively the Wizard's DC has gone up by 88, to a 104.

 

[HellHound]

We've been using the Reflex Save to prevent method from Song & Silence for about a year now to great effect.

See it a LOT with our current group of 4 level 4 rogues... (Rogue 4, Rogue 2 / Ranger 2, Rogue 2 / Wizard 2 and Rogue 3 / Cleric 1).

I heartily endorse it!

---

Hound Post #1957 - The year that West Side Story debuted on Broadway and brought violence to the stage, paving the way for modern Saturday Morning Cartoons.