Are tumble Checks too easy?

[James McMurray]

A 5th level rogue who really wants to assassinate a 6-year-old prince has many, many ways to do it, without having to go to the trouble of melee combat.

And somehow that means that his ability to enter into melee combat unchecked by the high-level bodygaurd is somehow irrelevant?

WANKER, you don't WANKER. Or rather, you WANKER a point, which basically WANKER of "Tumble is WANKER". Which is nice, but WANKER consists of an appeal to WANKER, is not exactly WANKER. Not that that stops you WANKER, ignore list WANKER.

I've said all along that this discussion is irrelevant. Neither side will ever convince the other, that's the way it is in most internet bbs's. Doesn't mean I can't use it to fill the minutes while I wait for code to build.

 

[Darklone]

And somehow that means that his ability to enter into melee combat unchecked by the high-level bodygaurd is somehow irrelevant?

Bodyguards (Devoted Defenders) are supposed to throw themselves into the assassins weapons and die heroically. That's why you need so many of them.

 

[hong]

And somehow that means that his ability to enter into melee combat unchecked by the high-level bodygaurd is somehow irrelevant?

Yes, because most D&D games are not going to feature incompetent targets for assassination. The ruleset works in situations where it's going to be applied. If you want to make up contrived situations, that's your business.

I've said all along that this discussion is irrelevant.

Feel free to ignore me.

Neither side will ever convince the other, that's the way it is in most internet bbs's.

In that case, BE FUNNY!

Doesn't mean I can't use it to fill the minutes while I wait for code to build.

That's the most unoriginal way I've seen of saying "I lose".

And BTW, it's wanger, not wanker. If you're going to STEAL MY SCHTICK, could you at least get it right?

Friggin' newbies.

 

[James McMurray]

Bodyguards (Devoted Defenders) are supposed to throw themselves into the assassins weapons and die heroically. That's why you need so many of them.

Except that not all bodygaurds are devoted defenders. People using the core rules won't have DDs available. Primarily chaotic societies won't have DDs available. And many cheap royalists would rather hire a less expensive normal bodygaurd.

 

[James McMurray]

In that case, BE FUNNY!

Practice what you preach.

That's the most unoriginal way I've seen of saying "I lose".

<Sarcasm>Yeah, that's what I wass aying. </Sarcasm>

 

[Devilkiller]

no royal underwear of heavy fortification?

 

[hong]

Practice what you preach.

Pearls before swine, etcetera.

<Sarcasm>Yeah, that's what I wass aying. </Sarcasm>

<irony>It is good that with the advent of the world wide web, we now have tags with which to decorate our text. In the olden days of plain text environments, of course, we didn't have the luxury of <Dr Evil hand movements>stage directions</Dr Evil hand movements> to convey <deadpan>shifts of mood and tone</deadpan>. This naturally led to much conflict, and possibly even <exaggeration>armed warfare between nations</exaggeration>. If only <namedrop>Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat</namedrop> could learn to insert such tags into their speeches, <hyperbole>peace in the Middle East would be that much closer</hyperbole></irony>

 

[James McMurray]

no royal underwear of heavy fortification?

Dad wouldn't pay 1500 to hire a decent bodygaurd. Why would he pay 36,000 to get the kid some nice underwear?

 

[hong]

no royal underwear of heavy fortification?

In McMurray world, the emperor is not wearing pants.

 

[hong]

Except that not all bodygaurds are devoted defenders. People using the core rules won't have DDs available. Primarily chaotic societies won't have DDs available. And many cheap royalists would rather hire a less expensive normal bodygaurd.

If you set up a 1HD commoner or noble as a target for assassination, Tumble is the least of your worries.


Hong "keep your eyes on those housecats" Ooi