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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2597161" data-attributes="member: 26473">No, that's incorrect and misleading - let's be clear: the scenario was tumbling off a table to the floor in melee to flank an opponent .First, including the Jump check as part of a complex combat maneuver was one possible solution to reflect the added dificulty of what the character was attempting to do, as was requiring a second Tumble check or increasing the Tumble DC.Second, some GMs would consider the situation more complex than what the rules provide for, that the rules fail to adequately reflect the challenge of what the character is attempting to do. Is Tumbling from the table, or from an eight-foot wall, the same as Tumbling while standing on flat ground? If you read the rules as written, it is - however, this tests the limits of plausibility for some GMs.It's also bland as heck. As a GM, I want the players to operate on the edge of success, not safely behind it - this means creating challenges that force them to make tough choices, where calculating DCs results in, "Gee, that's gonna be a close one!" Some GMs use circumstance modifiers, some use complex skill checks, but either way, the goal is the same: to nudge the players out of their characters' comfort zones and make the action as exciting and unpredictable as action/adventure should be.(In my humble opinion, of course.)By the way, complex skill checks are a part of the rules. Want to jump up to reach a ledge or a scaffold twelve feet over your Medium-sized character's head? DC 16 Jump check and DC 15 Climb check. Straight from the RAW. Using a complex skill check to resolve the Tumble from table or wall is an extension of the RAW.When the rules are ambiguous or are being extended to cover something that isn't explicitly addressed, that's up to the GM to decide.The idea that most skill checks are pass/fail also contributes to that sense of blandness that I try to avoid. I've used a lost action as the consequence for failing a skill check, such as missing a Drive check - that could be the only consequence of missing the Jump check in the Tumble example above, if the GM decides to blur the sharp edges of the existing rule.On the other hand, it would be much more interesting if that character attempting to Tumble from the table or the wall had a chance to fall flat on her arse instead of Tumbling past safely regardless of the results of the skill check...(Just say no to bland.)Again, this was not the scenario originally offered - you're dumbing-down the example rather than addressing it as written. Please stop.Really?Okay, Majoru Oakheart, quote the Jump DC from the 3.5 SRD for the scenario I described - hopping over a four-foot wall to land immediately on the other side (not eight-feet beyond it) - and I won't post to any ENWorld board other than the PbP forums for a week.Tumbling from flat ground. Tumbling from a table. Tumbling from an eight-foot high wall. All in melee. All DC 15.Maybe that seems like common sense to you - it doesn't to me.3e/d20 does an admirable job of covering a great many actions, but there are also what I call "sharp edges" to many of the rules - six inches one way or another means the difference between risking damage or not from a fall, for example. Blurring those edges a bit increases the verisimilitude of the setting and makes it feel less like a board game.</blockquote>

Verification