Are tumble Checks too easy?

[Pax]

Tell me, Pax, when was the last time anyone on this board convinced you that you were wrong about anything?

The last time I was actually wrong.

Which as it happens, is neither more nor less frequent than with MOST people.

So tell me, MMu1, when was the last time you DIDN'T resort to needless personal attacks once your arguments ran out of steam?

 

[Pax]

Actually, Concentration is alot closer to Tumble than you're letting on. As you've noted, Concentration DCs are determined by the person casting the spell, not the person that otherwise would have recieved an AoO.

Just like tumble. The opponent's skill level is irrelevent.

The comparison is: "how dangerous is/are the square(s) tumbled through" or "how complex and difficult is the spell being cast". Concentration is scalar to the difficulty of what you are doing, and that difficulty increases as you rise in level.

Tumble doesn't. Yet it should.

Please......that's really not either relevant or likely. Let's not explore the "but if that dragon really was attacking you in Real Life..." sorts of arguements. They solve nothing, and mean even less.

It's entirely relevant. I'd consider the areas threatened by the epic knight-of-the-Realm to be more threatened than the areas threatened by the kid. I'd consider it logical that it should be harder to tumble past/through/around/etc a high-level, experienced veteran than past a gumby little kobold warrior-wannabe.

I notice just about everyone arguing FOR tumble the way it is, has characters that use it, or could use it. Has it crossed any of your minds you might be biased ... ? That you like the current "feh, no AoO for you" setup because it directly benefits you ... ?

 

[BeauNiddle]

The comparison is: "how dangerous is/are the square(s) tumbled through" or "how complex and difficult is the spell being cast". Concentration is scalar to the difficulty of what you are doing, and that difficulty increases as you rise in level.

Tumble doesn't. Yet it should.

Ummm.... Tumble scales depending on how many people you tumble past, how difficult the floor is and whether you are going through or round their square?

At least in 3.5

 

[Majere]

"I notice just about everyone arguing FOR tumble the way it is, has characters that use it, or could use it. Has it crossed any of your minds you might be biased ... ? That you like the current "feh, no AoO for you" setup because it directly benefits you ... ?"

In the whole of 3E Ive playeed 1 rogue. shadows dancer rogue sorcerer etcetcetc, he has shield, mage armor, dex, lots of nice tricks and ok hp. I would NEVER have throw him forward unless it was do or die time, ranged sneak attack is far superior, and far more deadly used right.

I have seen manymany tumbling rogues, we have one in our party who has work all the way to huge tumble and spring attack. And do you know what, every time he tumbles past he utters a phrase along the lines:
"I know its a risk but if I can land the big one"
or
"I know Ill get thrashed but I need to do something"

And amazingly enough, every time he goes forward he gets pummeled, because we are 8th level and fighting mobs doing 50+ damage per round to the party fighters with acs in the mid 30's (Expertise haste magical armor etc). And if at 8th/9th level you 5d6+nothing is killing a mob in one hit, you are fighting what we term "crud". And if the dont turn round and floor you with their +14/+9 attack doing d8+7 damage from all 3 of them, they are what we term "crud"

As it happends I dont stand to gain anything from tumble, after my outing to level 12 rogue I never ever intend to play a rogue again unless noone else is playing one and we need one for balance.

 

[mmu1]

The last time I was actually wrong.

Which as it happens, is neither more nor less frequent than with MOST people.

So tell me, MMu1, when was the last time you DIDN'T resort to needless personal attacks once your arguments ran out of steam?

See, that was a trick question. As this thread makes obvious, you have no ability to tell when you're wrong.

As for your question... I love it when someone whose entire line of "argument" can be summed up as "Because it should. Because I think so." starts talking about "needless"...

 

[hong]

I think the only change I'd make to Tumble is when you want to move through an occupied square. Currently it's just a bit too easy to ignore monsters in your way, since even if you fail the roll, you can still move through them (you just eat the AoO). I'd change it so that a failed roll stops your movement in the monster's threatened area, in addition to the AoO.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think the only change I'd make to Tumble is when you want to move through an occupied square. Currently it's just a bit too easy to ignore monsters in your way, since even if you fail the roll, you can still move through them (you just eat the AoO). I'd change it so that a failed roll stops your movement in the monster's threatened area, in addition to the AoO.

Read it again.

"Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy."

It's a change from 3E.

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

The comparison is: "how dangerous is/are the square(s) tumbled through" or "how complex and difficult is the spell being cast". Concentration is scalar to the difficulty of what you are doing, and that difficulty increases as you rise in level.

Tumble doesn't. Yet it should.

Tumble scales to the difficulty of what you are doing: those modifiers I was talking about on the first page of this thread.

How about this. It is a Concentration DC of 16 to cast Magic Missile when you are standing right next to the Inkeeper's son. It is a Concentration DC of 16 to cast Magic Missile when you are standing next to the Huge Hulking Beast.

I don't for the life of me know why a wizard would want to be next to the Huge Hulking Beast when he casts that spell, but that's when you would cast defensively: when you would otherwise provoke a melee AoO.

If the wizard rolls a successful Concentration check of 16, no matter his level or the foe's level (not considering the feat), then the wizard will never incur an attack of opportunity for casting a first level spell next to a foe. The DC raises if he wants to cast a higher level spell: a 9th level spell concentration DC is 24.

The base DC for tumbling around one opponent is 15. No matter the tumbler or the foe, if a 15 is made, the tumbler will never incur an AoO. If he wants to tumble past two, the DC gets harder by +2, but we already know that. Here's what's fun: tumbling through Billy the Inkeeper's occupied square has a harder DC than the wizard casting Power Word: Kill right next to the Huge Hulking Monster.

So, Pax, tell me how Tumble is so unlike Concentration that it breaks the game.

And allow me to pre-empt you on Spellcasting Harrier; I believe that Feat is not in the Core rulebooks. I am sure if you looked you would find a similar feat that would allow you to make tumble checks harder when opponents try to tumble past you by granting you an AoO.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Double Post.

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

Yeikes, that was definitely a double-double post.

I think a high-five is in order, Hyp.