Acrobatics skill questions/critiques

[Kaisoku]

I think +8 is more likely, maybe +10 for a Halfling. You get 3 ranks +3 class, maybe they'll have an 18 dex, but point buy is really expensive in PF, even with a +dex race, I'd expect a +2 or +3 more likely. And there could be a small armor check penalty. So...about half chance of working. Better with skill focus.

...

10 ranks, +3 class...+6 dex at level 10? Factoring in everything as above and assuming a less massive dex...i'd put that at +17 or +18 at best. So, less than 50% chance of working! Should I be concerned that with levels, your ability to tumble has gotten worse?

I'm thinking of a Rogue (the typical person who needs to flank and has acrobatics and dex), using point buy to get a 16 Dex, and having a racial bonus of +2.
Considering it's most likely his primary stat, a 16 in point buy isn't ridiculous.

By 10th level, getting a +4 item (or, an ally casting Cat's Grace), on your main stat isn't an absurd idea either.

Also, a masterwork studded leather by 3rd level, nor a mithral chain shirt by 10th level, are both completely within reason for no armor check penalty.

I think I can honestly say I've never seen someone play a Rogue or skill heavy character with even a -1 to their checks. Never happened. Ever.

So no... I think I have to insist on the numbers I provided. I'm not about to argue your experience though, it's quite feasible that in your experience you've seen different.
What I'm saying then is that you might be playing in a slightly less powered game though, compared to what the game expects (if you look at the wealth by level), which can give you worse numbers than expected.

This might be why you are seeing people have a different response to your rant, perhaps they aren't playing with the same numbers as your games.

.

Regarding downing a potion... like I mentioned, it would be a good item to use if you wanted to move full movement with the same odds as before with only half movement.

A more apt comparison would be a Fighter downing a potion of Enlarge to get better reach, or wanting a haste to get a bit extra.

Not "necessary", but nice.

 

[billd91]

It's true that good tumblers could move about without suffering AoOs in 3.5. My response is: so what? It was never a game breaker.

I don't agree with PF's factoring of BAB into tumbling difficulties. Trying to move past a slow and lumbering beast with a lot of hit dice and thus a high BAB shouldn't be all that difficult. The process was never one of competing with the creature the PC is tumbling around - it was simply a process of not dropping your guard and giving up a free attack while moving. A much superior option, in my opinion, would be adding to the combat reflexes feat tree with a feat or two that raise the difficulty of tumbling to avoid an AoO.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's true that good tumblers could move about without suffering AoOs in 3.5. My response is: so what? It was never a game breaker.

I don't agree with PF's factoring of BAB into tumbling difficulties. Trying to move past a slow and lumbering beast with a lot of hit dice and thus a high BAB shouldn't be all that difficult. The process was never one of competing with the creature the PC is tumbling around - it was simply a process of not dropping your guard and giving up a free attack while moving. A much superior option, in my opinion, would be adding to the combat reflexes feat tree with a feat or two that raise the difficulty of tumbling to avoid an AoO.

That's how I see it. For my games, I made two houserules to affect tumble. One, I let anyone expend an AoO to make an opposed tumble roll to stop a person from tumbling through his occupied space. The foe would then both have to beat the DC (25 typically) and win the opposed tumble check. Failure means he is blocked from entering the square on that move action. I'm considering extending it to the entire round, so he can't just devote a second move action to trying and pray the other guy doesn't have Combat Reflexes. Which brings me to the second houserule...

Anyone with Combat Reflexes gains a new benefit:

"Combat Reflexes [General, Fighter]
Benefit: In addition to it's other benefits, when someone tumbles through a square threatened by someone with Combat Reflexes, the character with Combat Reflexes may spend one of his Attacks of Opportunity for the round to make a tumble check, with a DC equal to the tumbler's tumble check result. If he is successful, the tumbler provokes attacks of opportunity as normal for moving through that square (from both the character with combat reflexes and other characters threatening that square.)
The tumbler may choose to stop his motion in that square to avoid AoOs. The character with Combat Reflexes may do this as often as he likes in a round if the tumbler continues to move through his threatened squares, as long as his dexterity score permits him enough attacks of opportunity to spend one for each opposed tumble check."

Now...I consider Combat Reflexes to be a slightly underpowered feat, so I didn't mind just adding to it. I seldom see it taken at all. If you think differently, you could always turn that benefit into it's own feat requiring Combat Reflexes. Or not requiring it...it's pretty limited use without multiple AoOs anyway. I haven't updated the wording in a while, I think I need to clean it up a bit, since you normally don't provoke multiple AoOs for moving through multiple squares on the same action. I'm leaning towards a successful use of this feat just plain ruining the other tumbler's ability to avoid AoOs at all with that particular move action, not just from the one square. If he wants to spend another move action to try and tumble again, he could get a new opposed roll (or just base DC if the Combat Reflexes guy has no more AoOs to use).

But yeah...the idea was a big dumb "pile of hit points" monster isn't extraordinarily hard to tumble past just because of a high BAB caused by huge HD. You want to stop a tumbler, you learn their tricks yourself. It'd work just as well with any other skill, whether it was a brand new "anti-tumble" skill or making it a new function of some other skill, like sense motive. Just so long as what's opposing it is another skill check.

 

[ruemere]

I was wrong regarding speed cost while tumbling - you just double the movement cost for squares you tumble through.

For more detailed explanation, see third post.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I was wrong regarding speed cost while tumbling - you just double the movement cost for squares you tumble through.

For more detailed explanation, see third post.

Regards,
Ruemere

Ah, well I'm glad they didn' change that, then. Acrobatics text was unclear. Thanks.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

So, my friend just pointed this out to me. It turns out, in fact, that it is too strong for a skill to let your Rogue or Monk avoid attacks of opportunity.

Grace - Pathfinder_OGC

Thankfully, Paizo corrected this fallacy from 3E by giving flawless combat mobility to the classes that should have it -- clerics and paladins girded in full plate.

 

[billd91]

Swift action, single round, movement oriented melee spells are great, if you ask me. I'm liking it. I'm particularly liking that it's not also given to the wizard/sorcerer spell list.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Swift action, single round, movement oriented melee spells are great, if you ask me. I'm liking it. I'm particularly liking that it's not also given to the wizard/sorcerer spell list.

I think you're missing the point of my rage... The very same ruleset that destroyed tumbling put out this spell, that's like urinating on Tumble's gravestone to me.

Although I don't understand the glee that classes w/ lower BAB and HD, almost nonexistent proficiencies, arcane spell failure, and not automatically knowing every single spell on their list don't get a good spell but clerics do.

 

[billd91]

I think you're missing the point of my rage... The very same ruleset that destroyed tumbling put out this spell, that's like urinating on Tumble's gravestone to me.

I find that rather bizarre, but different strokes for different folks.

Although I don't understand the glee that classes w/ lower BAB and HD, almost nonexistent proficiencies, arcane spell failure, and not automatically knowing every single spell on their list don't get a good spell but clerics do.

I think altogether too many spells end up in the wizard/sorcerer spell list so I'm not really sympathetic to the argument that they're somehow being shorted for not getting grace. They may not be able to pick from everything on the list, but I don't think a new spell that could be really well used by a ranger or maybe a bard or paladin needs to also become a potential tool for wizards. They've got plenty of powerful options already. They don't need more cherries to be picked.

 

[Kaisoku]

It's a 2nd level spell slot (or 1st for Paladin). It's a "get out of jail free" card, not a "move around the battlefield all day" spell.
It's not quite as bad as first glance.

However, I do agree with the sentiment about adding spells that basically obviate skill checks. I thought this was recognized when they changed a bunch of spells to give a bonus to the check to perform the action, rather than making it automatic.

Oh well...