Celtavian said:
You completely ignored the other reasons I stated and took one out of context. I stated multiple reasons why I didn't see an opposed Tumble checks as necessary.[/b]
No offense, Celtavian, but my point is that your other reasons have nothing to do with the mechanics of the Tumble skill.
1. The classes who possess this as a class skill are generally weak combatants with lower hit points and AC than the monsters or main fighters. I always felt the skill was made relatively easy because any opposed check would make the skill nigh on unuseable at high levels when it is needed the most making the Rogue, Monk and Bard obsolete attackers given their lower base attack and the extremely high AC of enemies. The flank bonus and ability to move using Tumble increase their combat viability and survivability.
What happens when you have a "strong" combatant (a duelist or outsider) with the Tumble skill, then? The point is that Tumble should NOT be the sole means of balancing rogues and monks with fighters; if that's the case, then it's an overpowered skill, because giving it and nothing else to a "strong" (i.e., good BAB) combatant supposedly would break it, according to this argument.
A Tumble check that, say, uses the opponent's attack roll as the success DC still favors the rogue or monk. It just removes the guaranteed success chance. Again, the problem isn't that Tumble shouldn't be used, but rather that the static DC means that the success chance becomes automatic, regardless of opponent, by about 10th level even for a reasonably average tumbler.
2. It is possible to ready an action to halt a tumbler by grappling them or hurt them very badly, even moreso at high levels given the number of creatures with special attacks. It is even possible to ready a spell such as a Wall of Force or Fire to stop them from tumbling as well. Plenty of counters to Tumble if it becomes a problem in your campaign.
It's also possible to ready an action to disrupt the casting of
wish; does this warrant moving the spell down a few levels and removing the XP cost? Again, you're talking more general combat consequences that are not specifically geared toward the Tumble skill, but apply to combatants using any number of combat options. As such, this argument is value-neutral with respect to the mechanics issue at hand.
3. With the new movement mechanic, a tumbler won't even be able to Tumble past extremely large creatures without a double movement (save for monks who don't get sneak attack).
This is a fair point. You won't be able to Tumble (1) past a Colossal creature (2) without a double move (3) if you're a rogue who has
no movement-boosting capability. Conditions 1, 2, and 3, my friend. That's hardly illustrative of the default situation.
4. With the new obstruction modifier, Tumbling through a creature will always be higher than 25, and tumbling through multiple creatures will be extremely high. I count the creature itself as an obstruction.
House rule, and thus not relevant to the discussion.
5. It is limited to wearers of light armor who are unencumbered. That severely limits armor choices further reducing high AC for many who possess this skill in most campaigns (save for the monk).
And the rogue, the duelist, or indeed anyone who's likely to use Tumble in the first place. This is like saying that high-level spells are underpowered because they're restricted to characters with high ability scores, which scores are used to set DCs anyway. Incidentally, a heavily-armored dwarf can use Tumble just fine.
7. It adds nothing to my game considering that versimilitude would not be helped because in a real fight, tumbling doesn't work. Tumbling is best left for Kung Fu theatre and cheesy action flicks, which to me is exactly what D&D combat often is. Why make it harder than it needs to be when it is a completely cinematic skill.
The issue is
good game mechanics, not "verisimilitude." Like you, I don't really care about verisimilitude. That doesn't stop me from wanting my game mechanics to support good play. For instance, I like the evasion special ability. Doesn't mean I want it to work even on a failed Reflex save.
8. Rogues have weak will and fort saves leaving them open to many special attacks that will leave them helpless or worse. Let them have their fun tumbling into sneak attack position, they get to do it less and less at the higher levels. Bards have no real reason to get into flank position, they are not particularly great combatants and could help the party a great deal more in other ways. Monks are monks, they should be high flying.
You're coming back to your original point of trying to use static Tumble DCs to balance everything. That's a danger sign right there. Tumble DCs should have very, very little to do with whether a class is balanced overall. (Incidentally, the point is that rogues can use Tumble
more and more at high levels because the check becomes automatic and thus entails no risk. The problem with a static Tumble DC is that you go from a moderate risk of failure with low-level consequences at low levels to NO risk of failure with any consequences at medium to high levels.)
9. If they officially institute an opposed tumble check I'll use it. I'm neither vehemently for nor against an opposed tumble check. I just assumed Andy Collins is an experienced DM who understood that an opposed Tumble roll might be more balanced, but less fun for rogues.
Fair, but I don't see it as "less fun," but YMMV.
As I've stated numerous times, Rogues are easily killed and hurt in high level play. I think Andy Collins knows this and made the tumble check easy just for this reason. Tumble is most effective for a monk, but more necessary for a rogue. Why make it harder for the rogue than it needs to be?
You've made the argument that Tumble DCs need to be kept static in order to balance out the (*sniff*) otherwise underpowered rogue class FOUR times in this post. Once again, I'll say that it's not relevant to the issue of how Tumble works mechanically and that if static Tumble DCs are needed to balance what otherwise would be a weak class, then Tumble is just too important, which is bad rules.
Rogues, monks and bards are amongst the weakest of combatants because most DM's are going to design their BBEG's based on the fighters BAB with bonuses and AC leaving these three classes automatically less effective in combat against the BBEG. I say let them have their fun with the cannon fodder and lesser BBEG's Tumbling about and using sneak attack, gaining a flank bonus, etc, etc.
Wait a minute; that's FIVE times.
Tumbling is not that big a deal, even less so in 3.5. It only increases survivability for the classes who have it. The biggest beneficiary of tumble is the rogue because it allows them to move into position for sneak attack and get out of combat if they have to (which they often have to at higher level).
Right; and those are seriously important benefits from the rogue's perspective. (Incidentally, Tumble also allows the monk to tumble up to casters and Stunning Fist them without having to spend... count it, THREE feats.) If rogues and monks want to be able to "tumble" with the total impunity you advocate (and it is total), they should have to spend the three feats that anyone without the Tumble skill would to do so.
1. It increases verisimilitude, basically meaning it should be more difficult to tumble past a higher level creature or enemy NPC. As I stated, you don't tumble in real fights, it doesn't work. It would not increase verisimilitude for me who has been in fights and knows tumbling is mostly a very good way to knock yourself prone or throw yourself offbalance. About the only time you should be tumbling is if you are thrown and trained to fall and quickly regain your feet using a roll or have to jump out of the way of an oncoming object you can't evade with running.
You seem to be confusing good game mechanics with story value here. I'm not trying to say that this is better from a "cinematic reality" perspective, but from a game balance and game play perspective.
2. There is no meaningful reason to raise the skill after a certain point due to the static DC's.
IMO, this is a better reason to include an opposed Tumble check. I don't like it when a skill becomes so easy to use their is no reason to advance it.
Bingo.
But, I can see why they didn't make Tumble an opposed roll. A rogue has many skills to build up, and adding another would overextend even a rogue's skill points. The other classes who have it don't benefit anywhere near as much as a rogue, so the skill is no big deal.
Ah yes; the rogue, who receives 8 + Int bonus skill points per level. For the price of maxing Tumble (probably about 1/10th of her skill points, assuming a human rogue with 12 Int), she gets the equivalent of what a fighter needs a Dex of 13 and three feats (MUCH more than 1/10th of a 10th-level fighter's available feats) by 10th level and gets much more out of Tumble than the fighter would.
We also use many of the skill uses in Oriental Adventures which encourages a rogue to increase their Tumble skill so they can do stuff like regain their feat as a free action.
That's good; I use those as well, and have no problem with those being a set DC because they don't allow for level-irrelevant strategy.
Still, I can see that set Tumble DCs work in your game. They don't in mine (or certainly, they didn't in three years of 3e gaming), so I went with the opposed roll, which DOES work well and better. And my rogues still Tumble.
