Anti-Tumble Feat

[KarinsDad]

Oh, nice. I'm so adopting this for my Homebrew, and I'll attempt to convince my DMs of its genius (shouldn't be difficult).

I'm not convinced of the genius of this.

The current rules have a Tumble roll. If made, no more rolls. If missed, an AoO roll. Two rolls max.

This rule has a Tumble roll. An AoO roll. And a counterAoO roll. Three rolls.

This is not a more elegant solution.


One better solution is to replace AC with the Tumble check if it is higher than normal AC (he ignored the "if it is higher" option in his #3 analysis). Tumble Skill Mod + D20 is often > Rogue or Monk AC, but not excessively so and not always. But, Tumble Skill Mod + D20 can often be slightly worse than Opponent To Hit + D20 (against similar level opponents), so it is still risky to Tumble. None of this auto-make crap.

Two rolls. No set DC. Worse case scenario, it is a normal AoO against normal AC.

 

[frankthedm]

One better solution is to replace AC with the Tumble check if it is higher than normal AC (he ignored the "if it is higher" option in his #3 analysis). Tumble Skill Mod + D20 is often > Rogue or Monk AC, but not excessively so and not always. But, Tumble Skill Mod + D20 can often be slightly worse than Opponent To Hit + D20 (against similar level opponents), so it is still risky to Tumble. None of this auto-make crap.

Two rolls. No set DC. Worse case scenario, it is a normal AoO against normal AC.

And in a best case senario, the foe has used up an AoO. Its the best solution IMHO. Only tweeking i think is needed is that the mobility feat out to be of help to the check and a modest bonus tumbling past bit bruisers, since those monsters tend to have unspeakable attack bonuses.

 

[Drowbane]

PC with pounce? Thats a problem.
PC with Dex of 50ish? Thats a problem.
PC with 6-9 attacks? That's a problem.

Tumble? Not a problem at all. Tumble doesn't add anything to the above situation that they couldn't get equally well with Spring Attack (regardless of the undoubtably massive AC that the 'PC' above had too, which might make most AoO moot)

In your experience/games, sure. If those were a problem to us, we'd addressed them first. The power-balance isn't an issue to us. This guy isn't alone in his "borkeness", most of the party would make many on these boards scratch thier eyes out in horror. If we had a problem with the other factors, we'd mentioned those first.

If you have ideas or know of a feat that would do what Tarionzcousin originally asked, great. If not, well... feel free to bad/wrong-fun our campaign.

JustinA: the group took a look at your Tumble-fix and someone mentioned that the "prevent AoO" aspect should only apply to AoOs due to movement. Which was your intent?

 

[Drowbane]

I'm not convinced of the genius of this.

The current rules have a Tumble roll. If made, no more rolls. If missed, an AoO roll. Two rolls max.

This rule has a Tumble roll. An AoO roll. And a counterAoO roll. Three rolls.

This is not a more elegant solution...

I for one don't care if it calls for "one more roll", if it fixes a hole in the game design.

 

[KarinsDad]

And in a best case senario, the foe has used up an AoO. Its the best solution IMHO. Only tweeking i think is needed is that the mobility feat out to be of help to the check and a modest bonus tumbling past bit bruisers, since those monsters tend to have unspeakable attack bonuses.

I agree with Mobility / Dodge.

I do not agree with large monsters. They already get minuses to hit because of being large. If a monster has an obscene To Hit, so be it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I for one don't care if it calls for "one more roll", if it fixes a hole in the game design.

So does Frank's solution, but Frank's is more elegant (if one drops the size modifier part).

Simple is nice. Not simple is not nice.

 

[Drowbane]

So does Frank's solution, but Frank's is more elegant (if one drops the size modifier part).

Simple is nice. Not simple is not nice.

The Tumble replaces AC (if better) would actually be a hit to this guy's AC

However, for a more conventional campaign... it might just be a better solution.

 

[amethal]

"Crothian is incapable of telling a lie. And Diaglo cannot multiclass. [Greylock]"
I don't follow.[/QUOTEIt was a very feeble joke, which seemed funny at the time. I was pretending my sig said something like "I know nothing about the topic and have nothing to contribute" and was using it as an excuse to post accordingly.

Also, I would just like to say that I didn't mean my response above to be quite so... jerkish. Sorry mate.

No worries, you put a smiley at the end of your post so I knew you weren't being a jerk. All's well in the world

 

[Drowbane]

"Crothian is incapable of telling a lie. And Diaglo cannot multiclass. [Greylock]"
I don't follow.

It was a very feeble joke, which seemed funny at the time. I was pretending my sig said something like "I know nothing about the topic and have nothing to contribute" and was using it as an excuse to post accordingly.

No worries, you put a smiley at the end of your post so I knew you weren't being a jerk. All's well in the world

Ahhh... hehe. I claim sleep deprivation as my excuse for not getting it.

 

[amethal]

At higher levels, it is very easy for a PC with max ranks in tumble and a high Dexterity to destroy poor Joe Monster.

That is how it should be.

If at higher levels Joe Monster stands there and let's the PC show off what his character was built for, then Joe Monster gets what he deserves.

For example, one way for Joe Monster to get an attack is to win initiative.

Another option is to force a miss chance.

Maybe have mirror image up, or actually be an illusion.

Have some hit points, so you don't get one-shotted by a stirge (or whatever the tiny PC happens to be).

Have some sort of retributive strike effect, so people hitting you take damage (fires of purity, and the psionic ability whose name escapes me come to mind).

Or have a sidekick in the way.

Or stand back.

Or stand behind a concealed pit ......