D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Tumble

[iwatt]

In this thread there was some discussion going about the pros and cons of using multiple rolls (as per the new rules) or using a single roll to determine success.

The general consensus was that a single roll was better than using multiple rolls (mathematically speaking). This comment had me troubled, until I realized that we were only taking into acount the case in which al AoO were avoided. In this case the multiple rolls will always provide a far smaller chance to avoid all AoO. Let's illustrate this with an example: tumbler with +10 to his check, trying to tumble PAST 4 opponents. Tumbling each opponent past the first rises the tumble DC by +2

Tumble +10

One Roll: +10 v/s DC 21-----> 50% of no AoO
4 Rolls: +10 vs DC 15/17/19/21----> 0.8*0.7*0.6*0.5=16.8%

Clearly in this case it's quite harder fort the tumbler to avoid ALL AoO.

Let's take the case of a far superior tumbler (+17)
One Roll: +17 v/s DC 21-----> 85% of no AoO
4 Rolls: +10 vs DC 15/17/19/21---->1*1*0.95*0.85=80.75%

In this case, the single roll is till superior, but not excesively so.

But remeber, we are basing our decision of "better" on the success chance on not causing any AoO. I believe the question is wether avoiding all but one or all but two is a better indicator. Therefore, I've analyzed the above example (tumbling past 4 opponents, for the following tumble modifiers: +5/+10/+15.

+5
#AoO___One Roll___4 Rolls
__0______25%_____2.2%
__1______75%_____14.9%
__2______65%_____35.7%
__3______55%_____35,1%
__4______45%_____12.1%


+10
#AoO___One Roll___4 Rolls
__0______50%_____16.8%
__1______50%_____39.4%
__2______40%_____32.0%
__3______30%_____10.6%
__4______20%_____1.2%

+15
#AoO___One Roll___4 Rolls
__0______75%_____60.6%
__1______25%_____34.1%
__2______15%_____5.2%
__3_______5%_____0.2%
__4_______0%_____0%

Now if your decision is to avoid at least half of the AoOs, using multiple rolls is a lot better in all cases.

In any case, I'm partial towards a single roll (less time consuming), and this at least makes me feel both options are slightly more balanced. A single roll makes it more likely to avoid all AoO, but does add risk (one bad roll and you're up shi.. creek). Multiple rolls diminih your chance of avoiding all AoO, but also diminishes the chances of getting beat up by every single dude you're trying to avoid.

 

[DrSpunj]

Wow!

Thanks for running these numbers! I just got my books yesterday and started reading through them immediately. I'm just at the Tumble skill and jumped online to find the old thread I'd started last week, mostly to figure out if we'd reached a consensus about one roll vs many.

I'm trying to decide if I'm going to house rule Tumble to be only a single roll. With your analysis, I don't think that I will, but I will offer the option for those that want to Tumble past several opponents and want to "go for broke" with a single roll. I'd already decided if someone wanted to Tumble through one or more occupied squares that I would have them roll for each opponent.

Anyway, thanks a lot for taking the time to work this out!

DrSpunj

 

[Tessarael]

I don't have the 3.5 PHB in front of me, but I thought the mechanic was that on your first failure you stop tumbling and incur an attack of opportunity.

I was proposing that failing the single roll would stop you at the first attacker whose DC you failed. e.g. Suppose you have skill 10 and roll 6. You would make it past one opponent then get stuck at the second opponent, giving them an attack of opportunity.

If the aim of multiple rolls is to reduce the chance of success, then to reduce the chance of success on one roll just increase the DC per combatant. e.g. base DC 15 + 4 per additional combatant.

 

[DrSpunj]

I don't have the 3.5 PHB in front of me, but I thought the mechanic was that on your first failure you stop tumbling and incur an attack of opportunity.

I'm looking at it now to make sure and there are two cases:

Tumbling PAST opponents: A failure allows *that* opponent an AoO as usual, other opponents still need to be checked independently. This is the example iwatt has analyzed above with 4 combatants. You may succeed or fail your Tumble check against any, all or none of them (though each beyond the first adds the requisite +2 to the DC). This scenario is best represented by either a single die roll or one die roll per opponent, depending on your goal (as iwatt illustrates above).

Tumbling THROUGH opponents: A failure means your Tumble is actually halted in the square before *that* opponent. You had to succeed at all your Tumble checks leading up to this opponent (since you made it this far) and you don't need to check any past this one (since you won't be going any further this turn!). This scenario is well represented with a single roll, IMO, because a success (for any given opponent) has no consequences and a failure allows the result to be compared to the DC to determine precisely where the tumble went wrong (or, more precisely, in front of which opponent the tumble went wrong), as you pointed out with your proposal.

DrSpunj

 

[iwatt]

DrSpunj, I'm glad you found it helpful. I did the math because I haven't decided either the way to go. MY players take forever in rolling dice, si I try to cut down on it (except for combat, I have them taking 10 most of the time ). About the two cases, I believe you are correct. Getting an AoO while tumbling past somebody won't stop you're movement. By the way, with a single roll I'd have the player declare all his movement and then check, going for broke as you say. That way when he's thinking "I only need a 5 or better" and he roles that 1, you get to wail on him all the way.
But I do have a question: If you fail the tumble THROUGH, you're movement is stopped. Shouldn't this only happen if the AoO scores a hit (kinda of like stopping a grapple if you damage him with an AoO). Or is the tumble check representing the fact that you are looking for a space through?

 

[DrSpunj]

By the way, with a single roll I'd have the player declare all his movement and then check, going for broke as you say. That way when he's thinking "I only need a 5 or better" and he roles that 1, you get to wail on him all the way.

Right, that's exactly how I plan to do it! Declare all movement first, then make a single roll or multiple rolls, player's choice.

But I do have a question: If you fail the tumble THROUGH, you're movement is stopped. Shouldn't this only happen if the AoO scores a hit (kinda of like stopping a grapple if you damage him with an AoO). Or is the tumble check representing the fact that you are looking for a space through?

I kicked this around, too. My old house rule was a failure on a Tumble through meant that the opponent got an AoO. Only if that AoO was successful (and it often wasn't because Mobility would kick in and help) would I halt movement in the appropriate square.

I'm not sure why the Revision Team halts movement with a failure and not with a successful AoO except it *IS* simpler. Your rationale about the failed check equating to "not finding a good tumbling route" is something I can understand and work with in my head. If the tumbler couldn't find a way through then they have to stop their movement and that opponent gets a chance to whale on them!

I'm trying to stick with the 3.5 rules as written when I'm not firmly against it, so I'll probably just go with a mild change here until I get a chance to see it in play some. While not stopping unless an AoO hits is more realistic, I'm not sure it's worth the opportunity cost of more die rolls and more time. It may be, but at least we can all figure that out around the game table when it comes up.

Thanks again!

DrSpunj

 

[CrimsonTemplar]

MHO

I think there should be seperate rolls for each opponent. It should be difficult to tumble between the legs of your opponent and it should exponentially more difficult to do it against multiple opponents. I think that there should be a chance of failure otherwise there's no challenge and we're just playing the game to roll dice (yay).

I've come across plenty of folks when I GM'd 3.0 LG games who automatically pass their tumble checks (or concentration checks for that matter) because they have max ranks, synergy bonuses, high linked attributes, nifty items, et al. Almost universally those folks aren't challenged by the game anymore...frankly they look bored.

I think the changes to Tumble are a Good Thing(tm).

 

[Tessarael]

CrimsonTemplar, multiple rolls does not fix characters automatically passing their Tumble checks. It does the following: if you have high Tumble (and in particular if you have Skill Mastery), you'll still make all those rolls. If you have mid-range Tumble, you will rapidly find that you can't tumble past multiple opponents (there's a high likelihood of failure on those multiple rolls).

If you want to make it difficult for everyone to tumble past multiple opponents, just increase the DC per opponent. Multiple rolls only penalise the characters that have some chance of failure. e.g. If your skill is 9, your chance to tumble past 3 opponents is: 0.5*0.6*0.7 = 0.21. If your skill is 15, your chance to tumble past 3 opponents is: 0.8*0.9 = 0.72.

Why do 6 skills points make such a big difference? It's because of the multiple rolls, which penalize someone who doesn't have a very high chance of success, but doesn't substantially penalize the guy with high tumbling. Worse, if you have Tumble skill 9 and skill mastery, you can _automatically_ tumble past all 3 opponents. Skill mastery has such a massive difference here, because of the multiple rolls.

 

[iwatt]

Tessarel im afraid I don't see Skill mastery as such a big abuse as you do. The fastest a rogue can get it is 10 the level (I think), which for an 18 Dex rogue (nothing out of the ordinary) wearing MW studdes leather (no check penalty) will have the following tumble check:

13 (ranks) + 4 (Dex) + 2 (Jump Synergy) =+19

without Skill Mastery he's still tumbling through at least 3 guys (DC 19 for the third), all the time. Of course with skill mastery he's tumbling past 8 guys (DC 29 ). Now he chose to give up a feat or Imp Evasion for this abilty, and that's even considering he's applying it to tumble.

Maybe I haven't been victimized by Uber tumblers, but I don't feel it's to abusive

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: MHO

I like the changes to tumble for the most part but I have to say that my experience is that the excitement of the game is not diminished in the slightest by autosucceeding on tumble or concentration checks. (My main LG character now has a +16 concentration score). The tactical question of "can I tumble past?" or "Can I cast defensively?" may no longer be significant at high levels however there are plenty of other things to think about--things like "can I make the 4 fort saves I'll need to make after I charge the first bodak?" or "Can I afford to cast Cure Serious on myself or do I have to cast magic weapon on the rogue's sword so that we can start killing the villains?" or "How much/little can I afford to power attack these creatures and still have a chance of both hitting and getting past their hardness/DR". At lower levels, those decisions are often predicated on whether or not the PC can do something--their resources and capabilities. At higher levels, questions are more often opportunity costs than opportunities.

I've come across plenty of folks when I GM'd 3.0 LG games who automatically pass their tumble checks (or concentration checks for that matter) because they have max ranks, synergy bonuses, high linked attributes, nifty items, et al. Almost universally those folks aren't challenged by the game anymore...frankly they look bored.

I think the changes to Tumble are a Good Thing(tm).