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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 3091358" data-attributes="member: 5889">I believe the tumble system is fine as is, and here's why: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!!Here's an example:Chess Master: I study chess day in and day out, everyday.Amateur: Wow that's nice, I play every so often, but I do a lot of other stuff too.Chess Master: How did you beat me!!!??Amateur: Just lucky I guess.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification