Alt Tumble rules

[Sir Brennen]

Hmm. Stalker0 makes some good points, but assuming you still want to have it scale, then I think having the AoO stop your movement through the opponent's space would work. You could get into a situation where you succeed when you rolled lousy, however. Say you get a grand total of 15 on your check (not even exceeding your AC). The opponent rolls a 1 on his AoO and you sail right through his space. It makes blocking a path that much more difficult.

[...]

Another objection to having the successful AoO prevent movement through the opponent's space is that if the opponent is out of AoO for the round tumblers can move through his space at will. In the group I DM for, there are no fewer than 4 characters with at least a few ranks in Tumble. I'd be pretty annoyed if they baited my big monster's AoO out of him and then all ran past him without even having to roll.

Well, to the first point: conversely, a tumbler could roll really well, and still get smacked from an AoO. But that's kinda moot because:

Your second point is definitely valid. So, tumbling through an opponent's space causes a -10 to the Tumble check, and you are stopped in the space before the opponent's either by a successful attack from the opponent, or if you fail to beat a DC 15 on the check.

 

[Ilium]

Here, have a look at this section for the Epic Level rules in the SRD.

Ah. So they basically shorten the fall by 1 foot for each 1.5 of check success. Cool. Thanks.

 

[Hawken]

How about having the 'defender' make a roll (Dex check, tumble, attack, etc.; whatever) and just subtract that value from the tumbler's skill check against the normal DCs.

If the tumbler fails and was trying to go past the 'defender's' space, then the defender gets an AoO. If the tumbler fails and was trying to go through the 'defender's', then there is no AoO, but the tumbler stops in the space he was in immediately before the 'defender's' space.

 

[Stalker0]

While I made my point above, my favorite alt tumble rule is the following:

When moving past an opponent, they can take an AOO on you. Your AC is equal to your normal AC + (your tumble check -10, no less than 0).

There's a couple of reasons:

1) Its quick. Its an AOO just like normal, attack vs AC just like everyone is used to, only the AC is adjusted. The problem with a tumble check to check for an AOO is it requires two sets of rolling. First you roll to see if the AOO takes place. Then you roll an AOO. This way is just one opposed roll, making it a bit faster.

2) In this version, Tumbling enhances your own AC. So a tumbler has two options to help them avoid those AOOs. THey can improve their AC normally, or they can improve their tumble check. And if they improve both, they are that much harder to hit. This also means that a tumbler isn't forced to dump skill point after skill point every level in order for tumble to be useful (as many attack roll vs tumble check variants force). As long as they are rasing their AC, there old tumble check will still help them even against better and better attack rolls.

 

[maggot]

When moving past an opponent, they can take an AOO on you. Your AC is equal to your normal AC + (your tumble check -10, no less than 0).

I see a few problems:

1. You end up double counting Dex: once in your normal AC, and once in your tumble check. Anyone with a high Dex gets way more out of a skill rank in Tumble than taking the Mobility feat.

2. The tumbler eats up an attack of opportunity from the opponent. So one tumbler can tumble by and then everyone else can go by unphased (unless the opponent happens to have Combat Reflexes).

 

[maggot]

In dnd, tumble serves one main purpose, to avoid AOOS and get by people. That's ALL it does, it a very specialized skill that a person has to spend points in. A fighter's fighting skill is used for all kinds of things, killing, grappling, disarming, it comes up all the time. Yet...when you start using comparison rolls between tumble and attack rolls (or BAB rolls), you are now saying that a point of tumble is equivalent to a point of attack bonus...but in the ONE place tumble is supposed to do ANYTHING!!

The counter example is intimidate. It is a skill and is opposed by the opponents level or HD. Levels and Hit Dice represent a lot more than even BAB, yet still you have to keep sinking skill points into Intimidate to "keep up".

That's the equivalent. You are saying that a person who throws a whole bunch of points into a very specialized skill is no better at doing his thing against a guy who just fights a lot. I mean, that's the very reason he gets tumble in the first place.

In the tumble check vs 10+BAB variant, each skill rank you put into tumble makes it that much easier to tumble past any given opponent. I don't think it is fair to compare it to a sliding scale opponent. Two rogues one with tumble +15 and one with tumble +20, which will get past a 10th level fighter more often. Which should?

And even against the sliding scale opponent, not every opponent has +1 BAB/level. Only true fighter types. Those that hold the line and are used to stopping people from getting by.

Also, let's take a look at the people who use tumble...mainly rogues and monks. For them, taking an AOO is much more likely (lower AC) and much more painful (lower hitpoints) than a fighter. And this gets worse at higher levels. For example, if your saying that a 5th level rogue taking an AOO 50% of the time from a 5th level fighter is equivalent to a 20th level rogue taking an AOO 50% of the time from a 20th level fighter...then your wrong. 20th level fighter do a whole lot more damage than 5th level ones in comparison, and are much more likely to succeed at their AOO. Rogues are fragile at high levels, they can't take that kind of punishment for long.

The 20th level fighter does a whole lot more damage because of his multiple attacks, yet he only gets one attack of opportunity against a failed tumble of a rogue or monk. I would say the attack is less threatening at 20th level than at 1st. Compare percentage of hit points lost. Also, in the tumble vs. 10+BAB variant, the 20th level rogue's higher Dex will result in getting past the AoO more often. Synergy and magic items also help. In fact this variant, it encourages things like Skill Focus(Tumble) and the +2/+2 feat that adds to tumble (something the standard system doesn't).

 

[Fieari]

I like setting the DC to 10+Attack. Fixed DCs seem unfair... I could train and train and train to be able to hit anything that moves, having an attack bonus of more than a hundred, and yet you can ALWAYS get past me with a DC 15 check. That's just wrong.

Fixed DCs also put very little incentive in getting better at the skill.

I do agree that an opposed roll slows combat down a little too much. Too many rolls. But making it so the opposed side is always "taking 10" on his side of the opposed roll seems to work well enough for me.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think 10 + base attack is a good benchline. That makes tumbling easier at lower levels (a good rogue might have +8 at 1st level compared to a DC 13 against a 3rd level fighter bad guy) and provides an incentive to keep the bonus high.

Personally, I have no problem with giving a character who invests a lot of skill points and potentially feats into the ability to virtually avoid attacks of opportunity.

 

[Sledge]

The counter example is intimidate. It is a skill and is opposed by the opponents level or HD. Levels and Hit Dice represent a lot more than even BAB, yet still you have to keep sinking skill points into Intimidate to "keep up".

Of course intimidate is largely accepted as a garbage skill for its nonsensical mechanics.

The question you should ask about tumble is how much more often do you really need that character to be hit? Realistically in most situations a fast character will have enough speed to go around without even considering aoo's. Any weakening of tumble has to be very careful or else the skill will be relegated to "why bother". So before a new system is created then perhaps it would be good to evaluate the goals. I.E. How succesful should a tumbler be typically?

 

[nobodez]

I still don't understand what the problem is. A fighter doesn't have to do anything special to raise his attack, but a rouge/monk/whatever has to apply skill points in tumble. So what if once they get high enough it's more difficult to move around? Also, don't forget that each opponent requires a separate Tumble check (and adds +2 to subsequent DCs). So a rogue trying to tumble through a line of 6 warriors in a 5-ft corridor has to make 6 checks, DC 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35, plus they probably have to do it at full speed, which gives them a -10 on their check. Make it a fifteen foot wide corridor with 18 warriors, and the DCs are 15, 17, and 29 for the first rank, 21, 23, and 35 for the second rank, 27, 29, and 41 for the third rank, 33, 35, and 47 for the fourth rank, 39, 41, and 53 for the fifth rank, and 45, 47, and 59 for the sixth rank, plus all that at -10 for the full-speed tumble. If that's not difficult, I don't know what is. It's not the skill that's the problem with easy Tumble checks, it's the terrain. Increase the difficulty of the terrain with obstructions, slipperiness, and slope, and you're looking at fully awful DCs.