Alt Tumble rules

[Storyteller01]

We allow tumble to counter tumbles, same as those with track and ranks survival countering another tracker. Fighters can use Knowledge (Tactics) to counter tumbles and feints.

 

[DerHauptman]

Tumble is the rogue's thing - taking it away because its too good i.e. a 3rd level rogue (with max ranks ans some focus/synergies) under the current rules can tumble circles round a 15th level fighter with an almost guarantee of success seems like a good idea on the surface but it opens a whole can of worms.

If the tumble rule needs fixed to balance the "realism factor" of the high level fighter not being able to even get a chance to hit a med-low level rogue is good.

Why then would the fighters high BAB not need adjusted to balance the "realism factor" of the rogue who's thing is his ability to tumble to avoid the high power - high damage fighter to get his stick in.

I mean we could say hell - ok he gets the AoO but only at a minus (insert # here i.e. tumble roll) to his attack roll.

The result is the same except you now have more rolls and more confusing add ons and house rules to remember.

Which is more important and has more sanctity tumble or the insane BAB - both are RAW, both are the particular classes shticks. Take them away and you gotta take everyones shticks away....

And as for those worried about loosing the WOW factor of the BBEG to a tumbling thief do you also worry about loosing his wow factor to the denigrating mage, or the miracle working cleric, the feat wielding fighter etc.

The tumble rule is not perfect - but what is. The game is balanced for the most part in general not in each category.

Let the people chose and play their classes to deny them their abilities to make the wow factor higher is the basis of the US vs THEM complaint.

 

[maggot]

Why post in House Rules if you think everything is fine?

 

[Justin Bacon]

By the standard rules, that's not true once the rogue in question has +14 on his tumble check, which in my campaigns is about 5th level (8 ranks, +2 synergy, +4 dex). Once you have +14 tumble, the kobold and the pit fiend hit you exactly the same percentage of the time: 0%. And they do exactly the same amount of damage: 0 damage. That is what this thread is trying to address.

I'm sorry. I misread your post. My reply was a complete non sequitur.

 

[Justin Bacon]

If the tumble rule needs fixed to balance the "realism factor" of the high level fighter not being able to even get a chance to hit a med-low level rogue is good.

Why then would the fighters high BAB not need adjusted to balance the "realism factor" of the rogue who's thing is his ability to tumble to avoid the high power - high damage fighter to get his stick in.

You're the first person to mention realism in this entire thread, so I'm not really sure who you're arguing with here.

The actual argument is one of character skill: A character with exceptional skills should not have those skills automatically nerfed by another character with significantly inferior skills. If I'm as skilled at trying to hit you as you are at dodging me, then the result should be a 50-50 chance. If I'm 20 times more skilled at hitting you than you are at dodging me, it becoes even more absurd for you to be able to avoid me every time.

But this is not just a matter of fairness, either. It's also a matter of robust design: Probably the most significant design flaw remaining in D&D today is the problem of absolute abilities. (Particularly when you've got one absolute ability which a designer decided to trump with a different absolute ability. And then you've got a trump for the trump and it's just a messy power escalation.)

This is something Sean K. Reynolds has talked about with a great deal of authority: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html

It should be noted that most of the variants being proposed here are not attempting to completely nerf the Tumbler-focused character. In a straight up BAB vs. Tumble comparison, the guy who's focused on tumbling as much as a fighter focuses on attacking is going to have a consistent +3 advantage. If it's really their primary schtick, then they'll have burned a feat or two on it (given them a +6 or +8 advanage). Those are not insignificant advantages.

 

[Beckett]

To prevent Tumble from being an auto-success at higher levels, I use a rule that I think I got from AU/AE. The DC on a tumble check is 15 or the opponents attack bonus, whichever is higher. Each opponent after the first adds +2, rolling through an opponent adds +5.

So, the shapeshifted Druid 9 my players faced last night had a +21 to hit with his bite. Had the rogue tried to tumble, the DC would be 21- for a Rogue 9 with 12 ranks of Tumble and +3 from Dex, there is a chance for failure, but very likely she'd tumble right by.

I use a similar rule for Concentration and casting defensively. It adds a bit of excitement to the game as these aren't sure-thing rolls, and since the rules apply equally to NPCs, there's the possibility that the players can use these rules to their advantage.

 

[Sir Brennen]

This is something Sean K. Reynolds has talked about with a great deal of authority: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html

I like that article and some of the SKR forum threads regarding it. Makes me tempted to use the dreaded "4" word.

It should be noted that most of the variants being proposed here are not attempting to completely nerf the Tumbler-focused character. In a straight up BAB vs. Tumble comparison, the guy who's focused on tumbling as much as a fighter focuses on attacking is going to have a consistent +3 advantage. If it's really their primary schtick, then they'll have burned a feat or two on it (given them a +6 or +8 advanage). Those are not insignificant advantages.

One minor quibble... even though a dedicated tumbler can have level + 3 ranks vs. a Ftr's BAB equal to his level, magic weapons and the number of spells that affect AB vs. Skill checks means the tumbler won't be that far ahead, even with feats. This is one reason I suggest letting Dodge and Mobility add to a Tumble check.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

We use the Iron Heroes rule... which is pretty much what you said you were using. I haven't noticed it slowing down combat any in our group...

 

[Justin Bacon]

One minor quibble... even though a dedicated tumbler can have level + 3 ranks vs. a Ftr's BAB equal to his level, magic weapons and the number of spells that affect AB vs. Skill checks means the tumbler won't be that far ahead, even with feats. This is one reason I suggest letting Dodge and Mobility add to a Tumble check.

I'd definitely say that the Mobility bonus should apply with any of these variants. Good call.

 

[maggot]

One minor quibble... even though a dedicated tumbler can have level + 3 ranks vs. a Ftr's BAB equal to his level, magic weapons and the number of spells that affect AB vs. Skill checks means the tumbler won't be that far ahead, even with feats. This is one reason I suggest letting Dodge and Mobility add to a Tumble check.

There's a difference between BAB and total attack bonus. I agree, total attack bonus is too much. But 10+BAB is a good target. The rogue can get ahead of the fighter based on the initial first level +3 ranks, the +2 synergy bonus from jump, dexterity modifier, and skill increasing items, spells, and/or feats.

For those that think BAB scales too quickly, you can use 10+Base Reflex Save as that scales slower than BAB, but BRS is hard to get from stats. (You wouldn't want to use total reflex save because it includes things like resistance bonuses.)