Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 2550896" data-attributes="member: 5143">Still don't find anything that would say you could use tumble to get over a 4 foot wall using the 3.5 PHB the MSRD and the 3.5 SRD.  It says it reduces falling distances and gets through and around enemies without AOO.It's not DM fiat I have a problem with, it is the AMOUNT of it.  If 1/100 times you have to make up a rule and 9/100 times you have room to "wiggle" a bit where the DC of something would be up to the DM, but likely within 2 or 4, and you are still using the same RULE, then that means 90% of the time, you are using rules that you know well because of how often they come up.  It means players likely know the rules without having to ask you.  It means you can quickly adjudicate them and move on.On the other hand, in 2nd edition there was no rules at all for grappling.  Everytime you suggested "I grab him", it was a grab bag to see what rule the DM came up with.  Opposed attack rolls?  Opposed strength check?  Dex checks?  Opposed attack rolls modified by your bend bar rolls?  What about opposed Nonweapon Proficiency checks in some type of grappling NWP?  All of these seem reasonable to me based on the rules of that game.  Each one you choose opens the game up to an arguement from every player at the table who thinks that new rule is stupid or allows some really unrealistic things to happen(mages consistantly beat low dex fighters because if it is an opposed dex check, for instance).  Will your DM remember the ruling next time?  If they do, will they rule that since this is a HALFLING, he gets to use his dex instead of his strength?  No idea, I can't predict it, so I can't be assured that I have a good chance of succeeding.  So, I'd prefer just to attack normally.  I know what that will do.I don't find that in the jump description, actually.  At least in the 3.5 Edition PHB.  I see the skill is used for jumping on to things, over things and down from things.  However, I see that it makes the 1st 10 feet of the jump nonlethal damage.  If it's less than that, it doesn't do damage, no reason to roll.Don't see any chance to fall over when jumping down from a table.  You COULD go beyond the rules, but what does it prove?It reminds me of the foreward in Combat and Tactics in 2nd Edition.  It was talking about the lack of a critical miss chart and why they chose not to put one in there.  The game designer commented that although some people liked the fact that there was a chance to drop your weapon or hit your party members with each swing, the fact that you gained more attacks per round as you went up levels meant that the higher level you got, the MORE chance there was to fumble.  Plus, a natural 1 was a 5% chance to fail horribly each time you swung a sword.  This didn't seem right unless they made the percentage so low as to be nearly insignifcant.  Also, if the percent chance is so insignificant why bother rolling an extra set of dice on every attack roll for the whole game on the off chance that it happens.  It eats up game time for no noticeable benefit.So, jumping down from a table has an insignificant chance of falling over, so no rules for it in the game.  No rules for it in the game, no reason to needlessly complicate the game by coming up with them.</blockquote>

Verification