Are tumble Checks too easy?

[Celtavian]

re

For the folks who want an opposed tumble check,

Why are you trying to create a house rule for an opposed roll for Tumbling? Are you trying to add realism to your game or is it really a problem in your campaign?

You are completely glossing over the fact that the only core classes with the Tumble skill are rather weak combatants. They don't have alot of hit points and their only saving grace is their sneak attack, unarmed strike, and nothing for the bard.

I don't know what level the campaigns you play in are, but at high levels Tumble means squat. The wizards are all flying. The clerics are protected by some sickening aura that requires a Fortitude save that would make a Rogue or Bard puke. The fighters have AC's that many rogues, monks and bards can't touch, as do many of the bad guys (And the wizard and fighter are usually surrounded by an aura as well). The enemies can sneak attack, and there is nothing like getting flanked up by a couple of Abyssal Ghouls or Blackstone Giants. They often have a high level rogue with the Spring Attack feat chain or some other sick combination that gives them plenty of opportunities to tear you up.

At high level, using the Tumble check as an AC is going to make it seem like you don't even have the skill. You are going to get splattered.

If all you play in is low level game where an opposed Tumble check can be reasonably balanced, then I guess no big deal. I just know at high level when an enemy creatures attack bonus can reach +30 or more, you are asking for trouble. What is the real trade off anyhow? Better gameplay. More realism. If you don't gain anything better for your game, don't bother using an opposed roll.

 

[Ravellion]

It's not that they are too easy, but that they are stagnant. Really, any character at level 6 can have a very good check with nothing but Ranks, Dex and synergy (ie. no expensive feats), hence can stop investing skills in it... at level 6.

This leads to predicatibilty, and hence, boredom. That's why the opposed with reflex save variant is quite useful: It demands the rogue to keep investing skill points in a skill he wants to use often (like any other skill really, if you want to use it often and relaibly, you keep it maxed), without making it too hard at high levels to try.

Yet there is always the small chance that your roll a 1 and the other guy a 20, and might just get an AoO on you. This amkes the roll somewhat exciting even if the rogue only fails one in fifty times.

Rav

 

[S'mon]

Tumble checks are rather easy, but I haven't seen a problem with them - it's a Skill, & the exact DC is up to the DM to determine, according to the circumstances. I did feel a bit bad once when a 9th level Rogue failed a DC 25 Tumble to get through 3 huge earth elementals and their AoOs turned her into Rogue paste.

 

[heggland]

How exactly do you grapple with a spiked chain, or a greatsword? And what exactly does grappling have to do with the "big weapon, smallfry stay on THAT side of me" character concept?

Keep one hand on your weapon, grapple with the other. The point is, if you want to stop the rogue getting past the front lines, you can do it with a readied action, regardless of Tumble.

 

[Pax]

Re: re

For the folks who want an opposed tumble check,

Why are you trying to create a house rule for an opposed roll for Tumbling? Are you trying to add realism to your game or is it really a problem in your campaign?

Yes to both.

The real problem I have is, it's no harder to tumble past the Advanced (+1,000,000 HD) Paragon Prismatic Dragon (CR around a million and a half), than it is to tumble past a random inkeeper's 12-year-old son with a wooden toy sword. That's just wrong to me. Absolutely and utterly wrong.

And as for reflex saves to oppose tumble: skills advance even faster and further than strong saves, let alone weak saves.

You are completely glossing over the fact that the only core classes with the Tumble skill are rather weak combatants. They don't have alot of hit points and their only saving grace is their sneak attack, unarmed strike, and nothing for the bard.

Monk/Fighter multiclass. In some campaigns and settings, that won't even trigger the ex-Monk rule.

Then there are prestige classes that have Tumble as in-class.

I don't know what level the campaigns you play in are, but at high levels Tumble means squat.

Really? Are you sure? That's funny, because I run a just-epic-level arena, ECL 25 in fact. And Tumble checks there are pushing into the 40's and 50's. To-Hits, even for rogues, tend to be at the point where the first attack bonus is no more than 5 less than the vast majority of ACs (the only exceptiosn are, those people who really PUSHED for high AC, and sacrificed a lot elsewhere).

The wizards are all flying.

Not always. And even so, with 10' ceilings in some places (you DO have encounters INDOORS, right?), flight isn't even a possibility.

The clerics are protected by some sickening aura that requires a Fortitude save that would make a Rogue or Bard puke.

... only if they fail their save. And only if they don't have some form of defense active.

The fighters have AC's that many rogues, monks and bards can't touch,[/b]

Actually, IIRC without exception, the highest ACs in Exodus have been possessed by monks and rogues.

And at least SOME of the characters in that arena have been "BBEG Tests" ... people running their possible BBG for the end of a campaiogn through it's paces under the equivalent of a "D&D combat stress test".

The enemies can sneak attack, and there is nothing like getting flanked up by a couple of Abyssal Ghouls or Blackstone Giants.

... if they don't have 4 more levels of Rogue than the tumblers has levels of an Uncanny Dodge class ... they're not going to get sneak attack.

At high level, using the Tumble check as an AC is going to make it seem like you don't even have the skill. You are going to get splattered.

By the rules, you won't even get swung at, initially.

If all you play in is low level game where an opposed Tumble check can be reasonably balanced, then I guess no big deal. I just know at high level when an enemy creatures attack bonus can reach +30 or more, you are asking for trouble.

But don't you think the higher-CR creatures should be harder totumble past, around, and through ... than inkeeper's sons with toy swords?!?

What is the real trade off anyhow? Better gameplay. More realism. If you don't gain anything better for your game, don't bother using an opposed roll.

How about balance. How about verisimilitude. How about, I'd like to see Tumble's DC be set to start at "15 plus the opponents BAB, whichever is higher", and then no opposed roll ... the opposed part would be in setting the DC. The better they are at combat, the better they are able to deal with people who want to try silly acrobatics in the middle of a fight.

How about, I dont like seeing entire feat chains rendered invalid by a skill.

 

[Dr. NRG]

There are a couple of problems with tumbling ease. As Ravellion identified, without any opposed roll there is virtually never a reason to continue to put ranks into tumble after about 6th-10th level. Second, a fast-moving tumbler totally negates any advantage provided by reach, combat reflexes, or any other AOO-oriented feat, weapon, ability, or skill.

Since 3.0 came out, our group has been playing under a house rule that to tumble through a threatened area, it's an opposed roll versus the reflex save of the threatener(s). Further, to tumble through someone's square, it's an opposed roll versus their reflex+10. The result has been that you can't just put a few ranks in tumble and be guaranteed to be untouchable. In order to stay ahead of the curve, you need to continue to invest. Moreover, tumbling through squares threatened by fast-moving rogues or monks can be dangerous. Finally, nothing is guaranteed. Rolling a one or twenty on your Reflex as the threatener still results in automatic success or failure. This has been very significant in some cases, as the rogue tumbles past the low-dex giant only to see the giant roll a 20 on his opposed reflex save roll...

Making the opposed roll versus reflex allows fast-moving, dextrous opponents a better chance at hitting a tumbler than slow-moving tanks with high BAB. IMHO, that is a better mechanic than allowing big, slow opponents a higher chance to hit a tumbler than small, fast ones.

Some people here are proposing radical solutions for what I view as a minor glitch. Doing calculations that include half of the opponent's Hit Dice, or calculating their tumble-oppose roll using some formula is burdensome. Using their Reflex save is easy, quick, and handles the main problems I've seen occur from from tumbling.

NRG

 

[Hypersmurf]

Using their Reflex save is easy, quick, and handles the main problems I've seen occur from from tumbling.

Although the check-plus-BAB mechanic already exists in 3.5 in the form of the Sense-Motive-plus-BAB opposed roll to defend against a Feint.

I think Reflex-plus-BAB is what I'll adopt if I get around to house-ruling Tumble.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

I would suggest using Dex + BAB or Tumble + BAB instead.

Generally saving throws are used when avoiding something, whereas skill and ability checks are used when actively trying to do something (such as hit someone tumbling past you).

Of course, I say that even though I currently use reflex saves in my campaign.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would suggest using Dex + BAB or Tumble + BAB instead.

Tumble's trained only, of course.

Generally saving throws are used when avoiding something, whereas skill and ability checks are used when actively trying to do something (such as hit someone tumbling past you).

But the check isn't to hit someone; it's to allow you the opportunity to attempt to hit somebody.

This check isn't active, it's passive. After the check is successful, you can still elect to do nothing.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Tumble's trained only, of course.

Which is why I included an or there. Had I meant to only allow it for those trained in tumbling, I would have specifically said "Tumble + BAB."

But the check isn't to hit someone; it's to allow you the opportunity to attempt to hit somebody.

This check isn't active, it's passive. After the check is successful, you can still elect to do nothing.

How is the check not active? You're doing something in the hopes of hitting someone. Sounds pretty active to me.

Also, why even make the roll if you don't want to hit them?

Attempting to hit someone is in no way "a roll made to avoid (at least partially) damage or harm." That's the definition of a saving throw. How does it make sense to use a saving throw when you're not even meeting the definition of the term? If that were the way it was supposed to wrk, they could simply have made the counter to Bluff be will save + saving throw.