Are tumble Checks too easy?

[TuDogz]

Two things to remember in all this.

1st.. We are talking about attacks of opportunity which meanings the check is to determine whether you lower your defenses enough to allow the opponent attacks beyond their normal capacity. The nature of who you are tumbling by doesn't necessarily affect your capacity to maintain your focus.

2nd.. Any high level fighter that is being flanked by a rogue and being killed by sneak attack is a fool for not having fortified armor. If you are a frontline fighter fortification is a must or you are subject to every rogue and freakish crit that comes along.

I just have not experienced that much abuse of the tumbling because the enemies I use against my player's are prepared for these obvious and common techniques. Just because as a Dm tumble froces you to grant the player flanking doesn't mean you have to grant the sneak attack.

 

[Felix]

Pax:
My Rogue(10) example faced the HARDEST single-creature DC possible, and couldn't fail. Period. Despite tumblind directly THROUGH the creature, over and around the absolutely WORST terrain possible.

You can't come up with more modifiers than that?

Pax:
the average Rogue(2) has 9.5hp, while the average fighter has 15.5; all of 6hp difference.

Yes, you can say big whoop when the difference is only 6 HP, but remember that the rogue only has 60% of a Fighter's HP, on average before CON mods. I think that 40% goes a long way.

By then he's dual-wielding, and milking evenmore out of sneak attack.

That is a seperate gripe about the rogue. This sounds like an anti-SA argument rather than an anit-tumble one. Sure, he might be able to get around the battlefield, but what happens in fights at night? That human rogue of yours won't be able to see well in the shadows, and he won't get his SA dice. So let him tumble.

If the problem is SA dice and their ability to take out bad guys in two hits, then fix that problem. Does tumble hurt the bad guys? Not directly, it just gives the rogue combat mobility.

If there is such a problem with tumble, could you demonstrate it with a monk or bard? Yes they will flank, but, so what?

 

[Pax]

You can't come up with more modifiers than that?

Seriously -- what more do you want? We've got a rubble-chocked, sloped, icy floor. And he's not just tumbling PAST the enemy, he's tumbling THROUGH them.

Yes, you can say big whoop when the difference is only 6 HP, but remember that the rogue only has 60% of a Fighter's HP, on average before CON mods. I think that 40% goes a long way.

One average hit with a decent weapon, or two hits with a not-so-good weapon. Since weapons deal damage in points, not percentages, then comparing the differences in terms of percentages to artificially inflate the apparent gap is not only a straw man, it borders on the inellectually dishonest.

That is a seperate gripe about the rogue. This sounds like an anti-SA argument rather than an anit-tumble one.

Not really. Sans tumble, SA is sufficiently hard to achieve that it's balanced. It's when the ridiculously-easy-to-meet Tumble DCs come into the picure that things begin to break down.

[quote[Sure, he might be able to get around the battlefield, but what happens in fights at night? That human rogue of yours won't be able to see well in the shadows, and he won't get his SA dice. So let him tumble.[/b][/quote]

Very rarely have I seen a fight where someone else in teh party (for their own needs, if nothing else) didn't arrange for a light source. As well, at 10th level ... I'd be very surprised if the rogue didn't have a means of seeing in the dark.

If the problem is SA dice and their ability to take out bad guys in two hits, then fix that problem.

For one, it's not two attacks, by Rogue (10) you're talking 3-4. For two, again, it's not the SA that is the problem.

Does tumble hurt the bad guys? Not directly, it just gives the rogue combat mobility.

No; a movement rate gives the rogue mobility. So would Dodge and Mobility. Tumble gives the rogue absolute impunity to movement-triggered AoO's. It also gives the rogue the ability to get behind an enemy line even when the enemies are standing shoulder-to-shoulder ... !!

If there is such a problem with tumble, could you demonstrate it with a monk or bard? Yes they will flank, but, so what?

The issue here, is tumble. Not Sneak Attack. Not anything else, except tumble.

Sometime, try BEING the big guy, and watching the entire core of yoru concept -- very feat you've taken, almost -- dismantled by a friggin' skill roll the other guy can't POSSIBLY fail!!.

I've been there, I've done that, and it sucks ...

At least against spellcasters, if the character makes it to a high enough ECL, you can take Spellcasting Harrier, and have a chance, still, to get those AoOs.

But not when Tumble comes into the picture ...

 

[Enkhidu]

I'll say it again: what if the skill checkl became the temporary AC during a dodge?

Am I missing something, or is it really just that simple?

 

[Celtavian]

re

Did you not read before posting?

My Rogue(10) example faced the HARDEST single-creature DC possible, and couldn't fail. Period. Despite tumblind directly THROUGH the creature, over and around the absolutely WORST terrain possible.

If he only wants to go AROUND, then he can auto-succeed versus upto SIX enemies.




Like most second-level fighters are going to have more than chainmail or a breastplate? The thief's AC is roughly the same as the fighter's. And, constitution aside, the average Rogue(2) has 9.5hp, while the average fighter has 15.5; all of 6hp difference. Big whoop.

Now look at the 10th level Rogue again. Hitting 37's with skill mastery, wearing a plus-whatever mithril shirt, ith a 20 dex ... that's AC 19, before magical plusses. By then he's dual-wielding, and milking evenmore out of sneak attack.

IME, the rogue didn't face as many attacks as the fighter did, primarily because he tumbled to flank ... and killed said enemy, usually before it could even swing atthe rogue!

This is where experiences differ. I have a Rogue/Monk/Ninja Spy, so my Tumble check would be fine with or without an opposed roll. I have an insane Tumble skill.

Alot of good it did me when I tumbled behind a Cornugon for a sneak attack. I snuck attack him once, then he pounded me to within an inch of my life. I have an AC 31 and 133 hit points. He nearly snuffed me in one round.

At high levels, that is how it is for many players. Tumbling don't mean squat alot of the time as most smart DM keep their bad guys moving and have them pound the foolish rogue that isolates himself by tumbling behind a bad guy.

D&D is a dangerous game. Tumbling, though ridiculously easy, protects characters without hit points and AC to survive otherwise. If my Monk/Rogue/Ninja Spy had to take an AOO going into combat and an AOO leaving combat (which he did after the Cornugon pounded him), then I would be dead. The cleric often only has enough healing power to keep up with the damage output for one character.

 

[heggland]

I'll say it again: what if the skill check became the temporary AC during a dodge?

I do something similar: Instead of removing the movement AoO(s), if you make your Tumble check, you get to add your Tumble ranks (not Tumble bonus) as a Dodge bonus to your AC (against the AoO(s) only). Works nicely.

 

[Farganger]

Two things to remember in all this.

1st.. We are talking about attacks of opportunity which meanings the check is to determine whether you lower your defenses enough to allow the opponent attacks beyond their normal capacity. The nature of who you are tumbling by doesn't necessarily affect your capacity to maintain your focus.

This was basically my point with my combat casting analogy.

It's interesting to read some of the "solutions" (running the gamut from simple to overly complicated), but I still don't see that using tumbling to avoid attacks of opportunity is any cause for concern.

In more than two years of playing and DMing, I haven't seen any problems with "tumbling" PC and NPCs. Indeed, the tumble check is a fairly elegant mechanism that improves the flow (and drama) of combat.

 

[Felix]

Pax:
Seriously -- what more do you want?

What mod would you apply with complete darkness?

straw man... inellectually dishonest.

I for one happen to agree that there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. But my intellectual dishonesty was only trying to point out that the 40% HP gap continues through both of their levels. When the Fighter has 100 HP, and the Rogue 60, that is a bigger difference than one hit with a decent weapon. I did say you could apply "big whoop" to low levels because the absolute difference was not so great, but the accumulation of that absolute gap will lead so something signifigant at later levels. I'm sorry you find that intellectually dishonest.

Pax
Sans tumble, SA is sufficiently hard to achieve that it's balanced.

And sans SA, how is tumble overpowered?

For one, it's not two attacks, by Rogue (10) you're talking 3-4.

Actually I was wrong. It is only one attack, regardless of level. If the rogue must move more than 5 feet he will Tumble. As soon as he moves more than that he will be able to attack only once. Then he must wait one round while the enemy can make a full attack on him, or get the hell out of the way.

Pax
...even when the enemies are standing shoulder-to-shoulder ... !!

You have rogues that want to tumble into a Phalanx? Sheesh, let them kill themselves.

The issue here, is tumble. Not Sneak Attack. Not anything else, except tumble.

So when the Bard tumbles by into flanking position to gain a +2 to attack for himself and his flanking partner the game breaks down?

Pax
Sometime, try BEING the big guy, and watching the entire core of your concept -- very feat you've taken, almost -- dismantled by a friggin' skill roll the other guy can't POSSIBLY fail!!.

If your entire concept is to not let people past you, sometime try readying an action.

Pax
I've been there, I've done that, and it sucks ...

I'm sure it does. So do a lot of things that can happen in DnD. Paralytic poison sucks. Swallow Whole sucks. Being called intellectually dishonest sucks. What's your point?

 

[hong]

Re: re

This is where experiences differ. I have a Rogue/Monk/Ninja Spy, so my Tumble check would be fine with or without an opposed roll. I have an insane Tumble skill.

Alot of good it did me when I tumbled behind a Cornugon for a sneak attack. I snuck attack him once, then he pounded me to within an inch of my life. I have an AC 31 and 133 hit points. He nearly snuffed me in one round.

Yeah. Tumble is not broken, at least this use of it. It's _Spring Attack_ that's broken.

Actually, Spring Attack probably isn't broken either. Oh well.

 

[Pax]

What mod would you apply with complete darkness?

Complete, as in "you're blind" darkness? Presupposing the rogue can't see ... then I'd simply disallow the check at all.

You have rogues that want to tumble into a Phalanx? Sheesh, let them kill themselves.

No, just to the other side of 2-3 enemies standing abreast in a hallway.

If your entire concept is to not let people past you, sometime try readying an action.

Oh, yes, that works EVER so well with -- for example -- Large and In Charge ... which only triggers on an AoO. And even with the readied attack, the rogue gets past the front lines.

Possibly making a single attack on, oh, say ... the wizard ... !