Are tumble Checks too easy?

[James McMurray]

It only gets worse as levels rise. Concentration to avoid spellcasting AoOs at least gets harder as spell level rises (and at Epic levels, you might be chucking, say, 18th level spells ... after all the metamagics are piled on), and at least can be hit with an Epic feat on TOP of it all, to make it harder (and harder and harder, as the Spellcasting Harrier gains levels).

Let's not bring concentration into this, or you and I might start debating over whether concentration should be opposed.

 

[Nail]

I fail to see how my scenarios were outlandish. A bit exagerrated, true, but the basic principal remains.

Hey, exagerration is a great discussion tool!

Topic: "Tumble is fine as a static DC."

Counter argument: "But then every 6 year old prince with 8 legendary dreadnought body guards would be dead."

Anyway......
As is, tumble is a simple mechanic that has only limited usefulness to a few classes. Throw in an opposed roll, and the simpleness evaporates, and "limited" changes to "practically zero".

 

[Mallus]

Why not just...

... roll the attacks for the opponents the character is trying to Tumble past use them for the Tumble DC's [this isn't mine, its Monte in AU]?

Seems reasonable. Might want to give each successive attacker a circumstance bonus to their attack roll.

Don't know if anyone brought it up yet...

 

[Nail]

Mallus: That is to say, the tumble roll becomes the tumbler's AC against AoOs?

...Didn't I read MC saying that was a bad idea? Why was that, exactly?

 

[ruleslawyer]

No; what Mallus is talking about is Monte's Arcana Unearthed Tumble skill variant, which uses the opponent's attack roll as the DC for tumbling through unoccupied areas, and the opponent's attack roll +5 as the DC for tumbling through occupied areas. This is the variant I've used IMC for about a year (since Monte put it up on his website) and it works fine.

Thing is, Nail, what's being disagreed about is this:

As is, tumble is a simple mechanic that has only limited usefulness to a few classes. Throw in an opposed roll, and the simpleness evaporates, and "limited" changes to "practically zero".

I happen to think that Tumble has more than limited usefulness both to rogues and monks, who coincidentally happen to be the characters most easily able to max it out, and that sticking a static DC on it makes tumbling automatic for such characters by 10th level or earlier, meaning its an always-on combat option that nicely replaces the need to take feats like Mobility or Spring Attack and that works just as well (i.e., automatically) against opponents who theoretically should have a better chance of countering a combat maneuver like this than do low-level opponents.

 

[Celtavian]

re

No offense, Celtavian, but my point is that your other reasons have nothing to do with the mechanics of the Tumble skill.

Mechanics are balanced a variety of ways. One way is to inventory all uses of a skill or ability in the scheme of standard combat, and compare it to the skills or abilities of other classes.

My main point was that given the core classes with access to Tumble (remember, game mechanics are generally balance using core classes), it does not imbalance the game nor hurt gameplay.

Why? Once again I state that classes who possess this skill and are most able to take advantage of it are weak combatants with many weaknesses. What I mean by this is that if they fail to make a Tumble check, even one AOO will seriously injure them. Multiple AOO's will destroy them.

In terms of party dynamics, for the rogue, monk or bard to be effective, they must be able to move in and out of combat without provoking AOO's. Otherwise, the rogue, monk or bard will have a terrible time entering combat the higher level they get mostly having to seek healing after suffering a few AOO's.

Heck, I have had to retreat from combat many times even when in ideal position because a creature attacked me a few times. The cleric can't be everywhere at once.

Given that the game is balanced according to a standard four person party, Tumble is as easy as it is because it increases the rogues survivability and ability to move effectively in combat. Otherwise, they would have to spend feats they probably don't have to effectively do the same thing.

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.

This is true. D&D is balanced according to the core rules though, so taking into account optimal prestige class builds can skew alot of abilities as we have too often seen.

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.

The point was that there are ways to counter a tumbler, such as taking a ready action to trip or grapple them. Tumblers can't always screw up the scenarios of a prepared DM. You asked for reasons why an opposed Tumble roll wasn't necessary, so I gave them to you.

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.

Notice how they have greatly reduced the movement increasing capabilities of rogues. Once again, I state tumbling is a good way to isolate yourself for death.

House rule, and thus not relevant to the discussion.

Interpretation actually. Is an area filled with a creature not considered obstructed? Since there is to my knowledge no clarification, I can only assume that a creature is considered an obstruction. I use size to determine how much of an obstruction.

I understand why you would choose to interpret the rule a different way. No need to discuss it.

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.

Once again, you said reasons why a Tumble skill check is not necessary. One of them being the skill is limited to use by people wearing a certain type of armor and unencumbered. Are we not supposed to considering balancing creatures for a 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.

Look, good play is a relative term. Good as in challenging. Good as in fun. Good as in balanced. Good meaning what? Explain.

I fail to see the analogy with the failed Reflex save. If a tumble check is failed, the tumble is ineffective in preventing AOO's. Your point?

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.)

Given that tumble is a skill commonly used by light fighters, I think it is perfectly reasonable to take it into account when balancing the overall abilities of a class.

Should it be the sole reason? no. Should it be considered, yes. Should you consider the difficult of a skill in terms of what it provides to certain classes who have it as a class skill? Yes.

AOO's very badly affect rogues, monks and bards. I know this for a fact. A single AOO at high level can be absolutely devastating to those three classes for a variety of reasons which I cannot begin to fully analyze by saying anything more than they are weaker combatants.

Fair, but I don't see it as "less fun," but YMMV.

Fun is a relative term as well. In my campaigns, an opposed Tumble roll would probably be very undesirable.

I'm not kidding. I don't know how other folks play, but the ruthless level of tactical acumen in our campaigns makes life difficult. Many times our characters feel helpless, especially our light fighters, increasing the difficulty of tumble would just further dampen their enjoyment of the game.

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.

Wait a minute; that's FIVE times.

Has the argument for an opposed tumble roll changed? I feel being redundant will possibly make clear my main point, thus allowing us to part company agreeing to disagree.

My main point has been made multiple times. It has not been refuted unless you consider saying basing class balance on an important skill should not be considered. I disagree. I think they chose very carefully what core classes would receive tumble and how that skill would affect gameplay. They did not balance Tumble according to every possible prestige class or multi-class combination available.

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.

(In the campaigns I play in, tumbling up to the casters is usually not an option. They certainly don't place themselves in harm's way. No monk in our campaign has done this all too often. In fact, it is a wonder if a monk survives to very high level in our campaigns.)

Once again I counter with monks and rogues die very easily and can't take the AOO's a fighter can. The cleric usually only has enough spell power to focus healing on one player.

Also, there are no 3 feats that can prevent AOO's in the core rules that I know of, make AOO's harder yes, but not prevent them save for from single creature. Only the tumble skill can prevent AOO's, that makes me believe given the only core classes that possess the skill that it was indeed meant for rogues and monks to be able to easily avoid AOO's. I know given my game experience, I would give rogues and monks a means to avoid AOO's.

We play ruthlessly. If you cannot say that Tumble is a good way to get killed by isolating yourself, we play very different campaigns.

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.

The word "good" is relative.

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.

He must continually raise several skills: Disable Device, Search, Escape Artist (very important given the power of grappling), Open Lock, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen to do a rogue's core job. These skills are more important than tumble which is more of a fun skill.

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.

Not everything needs to be level-relevant to be balanced.

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.

Its not whether they work well or not. As I said, I am neither vehemently for or against an opposed tumble roll. It is a non-factor in our game.

Tumble does not create an unfair advantage save in a few situations where we fight relatively weak creatures. I say let the tumblers have fun in combats with the cannon fodder. It isn't as if tumble is going to help them kill the BBEG when we face him.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Celtavian,
Please explain how these statements:

In terms of party dynamics, for the rogue, monk or bard to be effective, they must be able to move in and out of combat without provoking AOO's.

Given that tumble is a skill commonly used by light fighters, I think it is perfectly reasonable to take it into account when balancing the overall abilities of a class.

I think they chose very carefully what core classes would receive tumble and how that skill would affect gameplay.

My main point has been made multiple times. It has not been refuted unless you consider saying basing class balance on an important skill should not be considered. I disagree.

harmonize with these:

He must continually raise several skills: Disable Device, Search, Escape Artist (very important given the power of grappling), Open Lock, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen to do a rogue's core job. These skills are more important than tumble which is more of a fun skill.

Its not whether they work well or not. As I said, I am neither vehemently for or against an opposed tumble roll. It is a non-factor in our game.

It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either Tumble must be key to a rogue's viability (in which case he should max it out) or it isn't.

Incidentally, Tumble is incredibly deadly when used by monks, who ALSO happen to have a perfectly good Hit Die and often the best ACs in the game. The monk's combat options (Stunning Fist, Improved Trip, etc.) are also quite deadly, especially to casters, when combined with Tumble. By your argument, shouldn't the much-more-defensively-capable monk use different tumbling rules from those for the rogue? Either the skill must be balanced for all classes who get it, or it's unworkable.

The point was that there are ways to counter a tumbler, such as taking a ready action to trip or grapple them. Tumblers can't always screw up the scenarios of a prepared DM. You asked for reasons why an opposed Tumble roll wasn't necessary, so I gave them to you.

And I reiterate; these are not game options specifically geared toward tumblers, and thus no more relevant toward a game-mechanics discussion of tumbling than to a discussion of any other option.

Look, good play is a relative term. Good as in challenging. Good as in fun. Good as in balanced. Good meaning what? Explain.

Good as in balanced, challenging, and fun for all parties. Making Tumble an auto-success is fun for the rogue player. It's a bitch for the flanked fighter or wizard player.

I fail to see the analogy with the failed Reflex save. If a tumble check is failed, the tumble is ineffective in preventing AOO's. Your point?

My point being that, while evasion and tumbling are both abilities that add to cinematic combat regardless of verisimilitude, evasion isn't automatic by medium levels, whereas tumble is. The DC for evasion is set by the opposing caster; why shouldn't the DC for Tumble be set by the opposing fighter/rogue/whatever?

AOO's very badly affect rogues, monks and bards. I know this for a fact. A single AOO at high level can be absolutely devastating to those three classes for a variety of reasons which I cannot begin to fully analyze by saying anything more than they are weaker combatants.

1) I don't see how AoOs impact worse on monks, who usually have great ACs and hit dice on par with the ranger or cleric, than on anyone else. 2) AoOs also badly affect clerics and wizards. Neither of these classes receives Tumble as a class skill. 3) Most importantly, I still don't see how "It sucks to get AoO'd as a rogue" translates to "the rogue should be as easily able to avoid AoO from powerful opponents as from weak ones, regardless of the rogue's own level."

I'm not kidding. I don't know how other folks play, but the ruthless level of tactical acumen in our campaigns makes life difficult. Many times our characters feel helpless, especially our light fighters, increasing the difficulty of tumble would just further dampen their enjoyment of the game.

Interesting. Our gameplay must differ a LOT. The heavy fighters IMC often don't actually get to go; the rogues and monks hide themselves to the hilt, scout ahead, and coordinate devastating tumble/stunning/sneak attacks while the casters unleash spells from range. By the time the barbarians and tanks charge in, it's usually all over.

(In the campaigns I play in, tumbling up to the casters is usually not an option. They certainly don't place themselves in harm's way. No monk in our campaign has done this all too often. In fact, it is a wonder if a monk survives to very high level in our campaigns.)

You've got issues with your monk players, then. Monks are THE defense option characters, played well. Good saves + SR + multiple abilities to AC + improved evasion + speed = a very survivable PC.

Once again I counter with monks and rogues die very easily and can't take the AOO's a fighter can.

But the point is that they run NO RISK OF TAKING AoOs AT ALL under current mechanics. That's just boring. An opposed roll still makes monks and rogues much, much better at avoiding AoOs than a fighter; in fact, it highly privileges those who spend the skill points to do so. Under the current rules, a fighter can splash out on a +10 skill item, spend 2 skill points a level on tumbling (after all, what does a fighter have to spend points on otherwise?) and be able to Tumble exactly as well as a rogue or monk for purposes of avoiding AoOs (that is, perfectly) by 12th level or so.

Also, there are no 3 feats that can prevent AOO's in the core rules that I know of, make AOO's harder yes, but not prevent them save for from single creature. Only the tumble skill can prevent AOO's, that makes me believe given the only core classes that possess the skill that it was indeed meant for rogues and monks to be able to easily avoid AOO's.

Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack go a long way. And again, we have a danger sign here; any skill that allows you to do better than Spring Attack, a third-tier feat, in avoiding AoOs with a relatively non-significant investment is probably too good.

I know given my game experience, I would give rogues and monks a means to avoid AOO's.

As would I. It's caused spending the skill points and taking the risk.

We play ruthlessly. If you cannot say that Tumble is a good way to get killed by isolating yourself, we play very different campaigns.

I didn't say that. What I said is that it's irrelevant to how easy it should be to Tumble. In fact, maybe you'd be doing your foolhardy rogues a favor by making the DC for Tumbling against powerful foes (i.e., into bad situations) higher.

Not everything needs to be level-relevant to be balanced.

But most things do, especially in the context of combat maneuvers with direct and potentially deadly results. It is a game after all. Static skill DCs tend to involve things like climbing specific kinds of slopes and crafting thunderstones, not running circles around opponents and avoiding AoOs.

Tumble does not create an unfair advantage save in a few situations where we fight relatively weak creatures. I say let the tumblers have fun in combats with the cannon fodder. It isn't as if tumble is going to help them kill the BBEG when we face him.

See, and this is the point. If you really believe this, then an opposed-roll system is still going to allow your tumblers to have fun with the cannon fodder (who realistically aren't going to be rolling attacks high enough to beat the tumbers' checks) but will make it harder for them to waltz past tough opponents with well built front lines.
However, I guess we are agreeing to disagree (sigh). If you want the rules alternative I suggest, it's on p.90 of AU.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Celtavian,
Please explain how these statements:


harmonize with these:

It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either Tumble must be key to a rogue's viability (in which case he should max it out) or it isn't.

What point was I trying to make? That rogue's would be overextended skill point wise if they had another skill they needed to constantly raise because it was opposed. I listed 8 skills that should be consistently raised for the rogue to be effective. It is not as though the rogue can spend no points on tumble to be effective, he just doesn't need to spend 1 point every level. Tumble as I stated is a fun skill that greatly enhances combat effectiveness. It is not a must have for a rogue to do their job, which is not combat.

That skill list does not include Bluff, Use Magic Device, Balance, Climb and a variety of other skills that a rogue might want to have at least a few ranks in. Even a rogue has only so many skills points. I feel the game designers took this into account when designing tumble DC's. It wasn't so much that it shouldn't be an opposed roll, but this is a fun skill for a rogue so it doesn't need to be an opposed roll.

Incidentally, Tumble is incredibly deadly when used by monks, who ALSO happen to have a perfectly good Hit Die and often the best ACs in the game. The monk's combat options (Stunning Fist, Improved Trip, etc.) are also quite deadly, especially to casters, when combined with Tumble. By your argument, shouldn't the much-more-defensively-capable monk use different tumbling rules from those for the rogue? Either the skill must be balanced for all classes who get it, or it's unworkable.

Our experiences differ with casters. Maybe low level casters have trouble with tumbling monks, but mid to high level casters don't in our campaigns.

Yes, the monk being able to tumble is helpful for gaining a flank bonus, overall the rogue benefits the most from the skill for being able to move into sneak attack position.

I'm sorry, basing skill balance on the monk is impossible. If you analyze the monk's special abilities. at high level they vastly exceed what any other class can do save for the cleric or wizard. I would never balance an ability based on the monk class. The monk class is like the wizard, it starts off slow (reason why not many have survived to high level in our game), then become hell to deal with for just about any class including fighters.

And I reiterate; these are not game options specifically geared toward tumblers, and thus no more relevant toward a game-mechanics discussion of tumbling than to a discussion of any other option.

I agree. they are options for dealing with a variety of situations including tumbling. Same as a ready action can stop even a defensive casting caster using the concentration skill. See the similarity? Or do you also use an opposed roll for conentration? It becomes very easy as you rise in level as well and is based on the spell level with nothing to do with the skill of the person they defensive casting against. In fact, defensive casting is even easier than tumbling through a person, and will always be easier.

Good as in balanced, challenging, and fun for all parties. Making Tumble an auto-success is fun for the rogue player. It's a bitch for the flanked fighter or wizard player.

Purely a matter of personal preference.

My point being that, while evasion and tumbling are both abilities that add to cinematic combat regardless of verisimilitude, evasion isn't automatic by medium levels, whereas tumble is. The DC for evasion is set by the opposing caster; why shouldn't the DC for Tumble be set by the opposing fighter/rogue/whatever?

The rogue still has a very optimal save versus reflex attacks. You certainly can't balance saving throws like skills without uttering ruining a major aspect of certain classes, spell casting.

AOO's are an extra, not a class ability. Please don't argue about combat reflexes, there are plenty of people that would still be subject to combat reflexes. If a few tumblers aren't, then big deal. There are plenty of people immune to mind-affecting spells, sneak attack and all other variety of spells and class abilities, it doesn't hurt balance that a few tumblers can pretty much be immune to AOO's. They are no more guaranteed than many other abilities possessed by monsters and characters.

1) I don't see how AoOs impact worse on monks, who usually have great ACs and hit dice on par with the ranger or cleric, than on anyone else. 2) AoOs also badly affect clerics and wizards. Neither of these classes receives Tumble as a class skill. 3) Most importantly, I still don't see how "It sucks to get AoO'd as a rogue" translates to "the rogue should be as easily able to avoid AoO from powerful opponents as from weak ones, regardless of the rogue's own level."

Please don't bring the wizard and cleric into this. I can cite a variety of ways for each to effectively deal with AOO's. A rogue has one way to counteract an AOO, tumbling. that's it. He could choose feats to make them more difficult, but only one means to actually counteract them.

At high levels, AOO's impact the monk because of party dynamics. A cleric has to focus their healing on one target, which means a monk must keep himself as undamaged as possible or be driven from the combat.

Even given their high AC, at higher levels certain creatures and spells can strike them easily enough causing substantial damage. They are also more likely to have fewer hit points because they must spend optimal stats on abilities other than Constitution.

There are many factors that must be considered when designing class capabilities and party dynamics must be taken into account as well. How much can the cleric heal? If the monk or rogue is severely damaged, will they be able to get out of combat so the cleric can heal them? So many factors to think about.

Interesting. Our gameplay must differ a LOT. The heavy fighters IMC often don't actually get to go; the rogues and monks hide themselves to the hilt, scout ahead, and coordinate devastating tumble/stunning/sneak attacks while the casters unleash spells from range. By the time the barbarians and tanks charge in, it's usually all over.

This works at times with cannon fodder. Somtimes we are just as likely to be ambushed after a few foray's into a fortified area.

For example, we re-entered an area we thought we had cleared out. Therein were a bunch of giant guards and two sorcerers with Slippers of Spider Climbing running on the roof. No melees were going to get to them.

I have multiple scenarios like this. You fight a lich or vampire and stunning and sneak attack doesn't work. Bad guys with Fortification armor. Flying and Invisible magi who wait to cast magic after they see what the party is giong to do or use conjuration spells from a distance. How often do you have the bad guy mage wait 3 to 5 rounds watching the combat continuing to throw bad guys at you until the party looks worn down enough to start dropping evocation spells on? How often does the DM make 1 or 2 enemies rush out of the room on the first round to alert the big bad? How often do you as a DM double up an Alarm spell in a regular guard room so that all a guard has to do is breach the alarm to alert the BBEG to your presence?

We play a ruthless game. These are common tactics. Probably why things that seem troublesome in other peoples games just get an "big deal" in ours. Absolutely ruthless games. I still cringe at the half-fiend fighter/rogue/duellist with the wounding rapier we had to fight while taking on a variety of other enemies. She danced around the field flanking and sneak attacking us while we fought her comrades. It wasn't pretty.

You've got issues with your monk players, then. Monks are THE defense option characters, played well. Good saves + SR + multiple abilities to AC + improved evasion + speed = a very survivable PC.

Its more we have issues with our monsters and enemies. They often prepare for us. It isn't fun.

But the point is that they run NO RISK OF TAKING AoOs AT ALL under current mechanics. That's just boring. An opposed roll still makes monks and rogues much, much better at avoiding AoOs than a fighter; in fact, it highly privileges those who spend the skill points to do so. Under the current rules, a fighter can splash out on a +10 skill item, spend 2 skill points a level on tumbling (after all, what does a fighter have to spend points on otherwise?) and be able to Tumble exactly as well as a rogue or monk for purposes of avoiding AoOs (that is, perfectly) by 12th level or so.

It is boring to you. As I said, tumble has proven to be a skill that increases survivability in our campaigns. That is something I am very much for considering the deadly nature of D&D. I don't know how many times a rogue, monk or prestige class has used tumble to limit a monster to one attack per round while they dodged to give the fighter-type time to eliminate the first enemy and engage the second.

It is a life saver in our campaign. That is why it is so hard for me to see the other perpsective. We must play a more ruthless game than others that skews my opinion.

Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack go a long way. And again, we have a danger sign here; any skill that allows you to do better than Spring Attack, a third-tier feat, in avoiding AoOs with a relatively non-significant investment is probably too good.

I can see this concern, save that a tumbler can only move once then attack. Spring Attack is much more effective in that you can move, attack, then move. A much more powerful ability than a half-move and atack.

As would I. It's caused spending the skill points and taking the risk.

A rogue still has to spend a reasonable number of skill points on the skill. It just doesn't need to be kept up like several other skills.

I didn't say that. What I said is that it's irrelevant to how easy it should be to Tumble. In fact, maybe you'd be doing your foolhardy rogues a favor by making the DC for Tumbling against powerful foes (i.e., into bad situations) higher.

I thought that was the point of hammering them. Sure, you can tumble easy, but if you do, you're going to suffer.

Why should I make the skill be hard so they have to spend skill points on it and have it be relatively useless because they will tumble into bad situations? I'm not changing the monsters tactics, and I'm not going to force them to increase a skill that is only marginally useful at higher levels.

But most things do, especially in the context of combat maneuvers with direct and potentially deadly results. It is a game after all. Static skill DCs tend to involve things like climbing specific kinds of slopes and crafting thunderstones, not running circles around opponents and avoiding AoOs.

Yes. I say again, there can only be so many opposed rolls or skills requiring high DC's. The rogue already has to many. I'm not going to lie, I feel tumble is a gimme skill for rogues. It makes them more fun to play at the sacrifice of a little more challenging mechanic. The fun of playing a rogue combat-wise is being able to get into position for a sneak attack and their skills.

The monk is not a balanced class IMO. They are slow-build into a nightmare for a DM. Tumble is the least of your worries for a high level monk. They tear up any NPC's with class levels because of the superiority of the monk class, but can be easily defeated by a powerful monster. Monk is not balanced versus other core-classes.

See, and this is the point. If you really believe this, then an opposed-roll system is still going to allow your tumblers to have fun with the cannon fodder (who realistically aren't going to be rolling attacks high enough to beat the tumbers' checks) but will make it harder for them to waltz past tough opponents with well built front lines.
However, I guess we are agreeing to disagree (sigh). If you want the rules alternative I suggest, it's on p.90 of AU.

An opposed tumble roll would overextend a rogue's skill points IMO. The monk can continue to build up his tumble to take advantage of the advanced tumbling options in OA. The rogue can have a decent tumble skill that still allows them to position for the sneak attack while not costing them too many skill points.

Rogue's have to be prepared. An average rogue in our campaign receives about 10 or 11 skill points a level. They must have a variety of skills at a decent level including the core 8 I mentioned to be effective. They usually need Bluff, Balance, Gather Information, Climb, and Swim as well at a some point in time. It is also desirable that they pick up more than a few languages to be a better scout.

I just don't mind the tumble skill. When it becomes a problem, I will adjust it.

 

[Nail]

Wow. Monster posts, you two.

For example, we re-entered an area we thought we had cleared out. Therein were a bunch of giant guards and two sorcerers with Slippers of Spider Climbing running on the roof. No melees were going to get to them.

I have multiple scenarios like this. You fight a lich or vampire and stunning and sneak attack doesn't work. Bad guys with Fortification armor. Flying and Invisible magi who wait to cast magic after they see what the party is giong to do or use conjuration spells from a distance. How often do you have the bad guy mage wait 3 to 5 rounds watching the combat continuing to throw bad guys at you until the party looks worn down enough to start dropping evocation spells on? How often does the DM make 1 or 2 enemies rush out of the room on the first round to alert the big bad? How often do you as a DM double up an Alarm spell in a regular guard room so that all a guard has to do is breach the alarm to alert the BBEG to your presence?

We play a ruthless game.

..And to be honest, you're not the only one. I DM a game like this, and I've played in others like this.

For the most part (over ~60% of the time), the PCs are not able to "get the jump" on the bad guys. Thus the mages aren't far enough away from combat to be safe, the rogues aren't in position to sneak attack immediately, and the position of the meat shields up front are crucial to the battle's outcome; they need to hold up the bad guys for a few moments while everyone else gets into position.

To relate to topic: If the tumble skill was always being used in game to great effect, then I'd agree there is a problem. Kinda like 3.0e Haste, really. Since this isn't the case.....

Moreover, we can reasonably explain why the tumble skill works as a static, rather than opposed, check. Since it's reasonable, there's no need to change it.

Heh. Just to prove how fickle I can be: Tell me about Monte's reasoning behind making the opponent's attack roll the tumble DC, and then requiring the opponent to roll a separate roll to hit. I'm interested.

 

[Majere]

"Interesting. Our gameplay must differ a LOT. The heavy fighters IMC often don't actually get to go; the rogues and monks hide themselves to the hilt, scout ahead, and coordinate devastating tumble/stunning/sneak attacks while the casters unleash spells from range. By the time the barbarians and tanks charge in, it's usually all over."

Your game is whack
Its that simple .. your game is complete and utter BS if your DM lets you do this.
There is clearly only 1 way to end this discussion, bring your rogues to our group, he should die in the first 6 rounds of the fist combat and then we can ask you to roleplay a dead chump by sitting down and shutting the hell up.
THEN you can go home and ask your DM why he throws joke challenges at you