Are tumble Checks too easy?

[James McMurray]

The arguments are pointless either way. The problem I have with the view that Tumble needs an opposed roll is "game value." "Game value" is basically an indicator of what does a rule change add to your game.

I don't feel a Tumble check would add anything to my game. It would just be another dice mechanic for me to remember.

As I stated too many times, as you get higher level Tumble becomes a relatively useless skill save for isolating yourself. Any DM worth his salt will have the BBEG hammer you hard or one of his minions do so if you Tumble into sneak attack position.

I fail to see anyone, including Pax, noting how often this happens in high level play. Rogues, Bards and Monks have a hard enough time surviving high level combat. I would love to hear how your Rogue, Bard or Monk utilized Tumble to survive high end Fort and Will saves.

From what it sounds like to me, Pax is playing in a soft campaign that lets players get away with murder. I don't play in one of those campaigns and alot of the time I use my Tumble skill to even get a chance to enter combat after the fighters draw the ire of the creature. It doesn't take much to kill a Rogue, Bard or Monk. Do you acknowledge this reality or do you plan to give me a BS example of the exceptional Rogue who happens to have a better AC than the fighter? It certainly doesn't happen that often in the campaigns I play in.

I won't reply with a "BS example". For one, if there is an example that can be made by the rules, then it isn't BS. Second, your mind, as you said, is made up. Why should I try to change it? It isn't as if either of our happiness lies in making the other see things our way. I'm perfectly content to state my side of things and move on.

I don't know what games Pax plays in other than one Epic Arena (check my sig for more info). In an arena setting, where fights are generally somewhere between one-on-one and two-on-two, tumble becomes an incredibly powerful skill.

I have two rogues in that arena (Flim and Flam). They use tumble to demolish their foes by getting into flanking position with sneak attacks. If we didn't use the reflex save variant for tumble, there'd never be a failed tumble check ever, meaning no one could ever stop them from flanking without finding a corner to hide in.

In games where you constantly face multiple foes, tumble becomes less useful. In games where you sometimes face multiple foes, and sometimes face one or two, tumble becomes a better option. In games where you usually face one or two foes, tumble becomes valuable enough to pick up as a cross-class skill and get a magic item to help you out.

 

[Farganger]

How about this. It is a Concentration DC of 16 to cast Magic Missile when you are standing right next to the Inkeeper's son. It is a Concentration DC of 16 to cast Magic Missile when you are standing next to the Huge Hulking Beast.

I don't for the life of me know why a wizard would want to be next to the Huge Hulking Beast when he casts that spell, but that's when you would cast defensively: when you would otherwise provoke a melee AoO.

If the wizard rolls a successful Concentration check of 16, no matter his level or the foe's level (not considering the feat), then the wizard will never incur an attack of opportunity for casting a first level spell next to a foe. The DC raises if he wants to cast a higher level spell: a 9th level spell concentration DC is 24.

We seem to be recycling good arguments here, but not making any headway!

On page one, I tried to make the same basic point, thinking it was a useful analogy:

"A first level wizard stand[ing] next to her enemy can "cast defensively" and not provoke an attack of opportunity, whether the enemy is a kobold or Lolth. Our wizard has exactly the same DC to avoid an AoO from either, but this doesn't worry me."

At this point, I'm rather certain Pax is *not* going to concede the point.

 

[Felix]

Oops! Heh, that's a good point we made, eh Farganger? Although I think we have seen the reply to our argument: "He probably won't be casting Magic Missile" Feh.

I don't see what Pax has against Magic Missile. It's a good spell. One that scales with level (unlike those naughty Tumble DCs). To each his own, I guess.

James McMurray:

In one campaign, my character is currently alone, talking with a few rogues. I count myself fortunate to have Favored Enemy: Human, and Favored Enemy Strike, so I think I might be able to take them in a straight fight. But not if they flank and sneak attack me.

So I was thinking about ways to get around the flanking business. What would happen in a 1 vs 2 if the 1 readied an action to take a five foot step when the second rogue made ready to flank and SA him?

Move from this:

212

To this:

1
2..2

Where the 1 is me, and the 2s are two rogues.

Prolongued use of this tactic will remove all of your attacks, but it will also remove the rogue's ability to flank and sneak attack. Maybe if the 1 wanted to buy time for some reason. At any rate, I thought this made for sound arena tactics.

 

[James McMurray]

Oops! Heh, that's a good point we made, eh Farganger? Although I think we have seen the reply to our argument: "He probably won't be casting Magic Missile" Feh.

I don't see what Pax has against Magic Missile. It's a good spell. One that scales with level (unlike those naughty Tumble DCs). To each his own, I guess.

I've got nothing against Magic Missile either. Especially when a shapechanged into a Spellweaver and casting 6 of them in one round.

In one campaign, my character is currently alone, talking with a few rogues. I count myself fortunate to have Favored Enemy: Human, and Favored Enemy Strike, so I think I might be able to take them in a straight fight. But not if they flank and sneak attack me.

So I was thinking about ways to get around the flanking business. What would happen in a 1 vs 2 if the 1 readied an action to take a five foot step when the second rogue made ready to flank and SA him?

Move from this:

212

To this:

1
2..2

Where the 1 is me, and the 2s are two rogues.

Prolongued use of this tactic will remove all of your attacks, but it will also remove the rogue's ability to flank and sneak attack. Maybe if the 1 wanted to buy time for some reason. At any rate, I thought this made for sound arena tactics.

That's a great srtategy when you're in the open and free to maneuver, but if you're in tight quarters you'll be in trouble. Also, you're sacrificing all your offense for a little bit of defense, not generally a good idea in an arena. If you time it correctly you could shut them down and still leave yourself a round to act every so often.

Please delete this post so that nobody from my arena reads it.

jk, I've got was around that involving quickened teleports or summoned flankers. Also, if that rogue ever sneak attacks you even once, you're in trouble becuae now you're staggered and hamstrung.

 

[Felix]

You can still make 5' steps if hamstrung. I was always more of a fan of Arterial Strike. Give up all of your dice the first two times you hit, and you're golden until he quaffs a Cure Light potion.

By the by, does wounding damage bypass DR since its from a source other than a weapon?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I was always more of a fan of Arterial Strike. Give up all of your dice...

There's a disputed interpretation there, of course - can you apply Arterial Strike more than once to the same attack?

Some would rule that you can give up +1d6 for 1 point of wounding... but not +4d6 for 4 points of wounding. You're either making an Arterial Strike or you aren't.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I don't know what games Pax plays in other than one Epic Arena (check my sig for more info). In an arena setting, where fights are generally somewhere between one-on-one and two-on-two, tumble becomes an incredibly powerful skill.

D&D is not, and has never been, balanced on the basis of one-on-one duels between PC-classed characters.

I have two rogues in that arena (Flim and Flam). They use tumble to demolish their foes by getting into flanking position with sneak attacks. If we didn't use the reflex save variant for tumble, there'd never be a failed tumble check ever, meaning no one could ever stop them from flanking without finding a corner to hide in.

What kind of idiot epic character doesn't have armour or bracers of fortification? Even leaving rogues aside, getting thumped with a x3 crit from a giant-sized greataxe is usually gonna hurt.

 

[James McMurray]

What kind of idiot epic character doesn't have armour or bracers of fortification? Even leaving rogues aside, getting thumped with a x3 crit from a giant-sized greataxe is usually gonna hurt.

And what kind of idiot epic level rogue doesn't run around in a widened antimagic field so he can actually sneak attack through fortified armor?

 

[James McMurray]

There's a disputed interpretation there, of course - can you apply Arterial Strike more than once to the same attack?

Some would rule that you can give up +1d6 for 1 point of wounding... but not +4d6 for 4 points of wounding. You're either making an Arterial Strike or you aren't.

-Hyp.

Where is Arterial Strike from? I've just finished my first fight with the two characters and if its worthwhile I'll swap it out for some other feat. What other sneak attack feats are there? I know there are a few in Song and Silence, but are there others elsewhere?

Of course, if Arterial strike is only for 1 point of wounding per d6, I don't know that Flim and Flam can afford to take it. Losing 42 (average) damage on your first hit to do 42 over the next few rounds isn't really worth it in n arena when you're playing a guy that rolls over and dies if he gets hit twice.

 

[hong]

That's because Hong's been on my ignore list for quite some time now. He's a non-issue these days, and life is much more tranquil.

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

And what kind of idiot epic level rogue doesn't run around in a widened antimagic field so he can actually sneak attack through fortified armor?

The idiot epic level rogue who doesn't want to be stripped down to 1d6 hit points per level, plus non-buffed Con bonus... and light armour AC, plus non-buffed Dex bonus... and BAB equal to 3/4 HD, plus non-buffed Str bonus....

PS. I dunno about anyone else, but I too find it really dumb that when two people gang up on one guy, the one guy tends to lose. Yeah, that's pretty broken.