Are tumble Checks too easy?

[Nail]

....(snip)....the idea that a skill alone can overcome something as integral as Attacks of Opportunity.....(snip)....

Thanks for putting that so succinctly, Enkhidu.

Maybe I can help you with that: there are all sorts of powers and skills that "overcome" all sorts of "integral" rules like AoO.

In fact, there are even some "integral rules" that overcome some "integral rules". Like 5-ft step, for instance, negating AoO. Like Uncanny Dodge negating surprise-induced Sneak Attacks. Like the feats that negate AoOs. Etc.

It's the nature of the game: you have rules, and then you have rules that break or bend the basic rule set. It's okay, really! It's part of the fun!

 

[James McMurray]

Look around, see anyone else on the 3rd page still arguing with everyone because they're trying to run an Epic game, don't have the rudimentary ability to handle a character with Tumble, and therefore need to prove to the world that the skill is broken?

Perhaps that's because the rest of us that disagree with tumble have realized that its pointless to argue with people that won't be convinced? It certainly isn't because your arguments have won us over. Basically a debate like this boils down to this:

1) Both sides state their cases
2) Both sides poke holes in the other side's cases
3) Both sides reword and restate their cases
4) Repeat steps one through three until somebody gets tired of it
5) The remaining arguer declares himself the victor.

Note that nowhere in that process is there a "one side gets convinced to change." That's because it rarely happens. All that you can hope to do in a debate is to sway the opinions of onlookers, because its incredibly rare to actually sway the opinion of the person you're debating with.

 

[Darklone]

James, you forgot to mention the

hong, "Master of puppets, oih"

 

[James McMurray]

James, you forgot to mention the

hong, "Master of puppets, oih"

That's because Hong's been on my ignore list for quite some time now. He's a non-issue these days, and life is much more tranquil.

 

[James McMurray]

James, you forgot to mention the

hong, "Master of puppets, oih"

That's because Hong's been on my ignore list for quite some time now. He's a non-issue these days, and life is much more tranquil.

 

[Nail]

Note that nowhere in that process is there a "one side gets convinced to change." That's because it rarely happens. All that you can hope to do in a debate is to sway the opinions of onlookers, because its incredibly rare to actually sway the opinion of the person you're debating with.

Not at all. In fact, if my position could not be changed with reasonable argument, I wouldn't bother to post.

 

[Celtavian]

Perhaps that's because the rest of us that disagree with tumble have realized that its pointless to argue with people that won't be convinced? It certainly isn't because your arguments have won us over. Basically a debate like this boils down to this:

1) Both sides state their cases
2) Both sides poke holes in the other side's cases
3) Both sides reword and restate their cases
4) Repeat steps one through three until somebody gets tired of it
5) The remaining arguer declares himself the victor.

Note that nowhere in that process is there a "one side gets convinced to change." That's because it rarely happens. All that you can hope to do in a debate is to sway the opinions of onlookers, because its incredibly rare to actually sway the opinion of the person you're debating with.

The arguments are pointless either way. The problem I have with the view that Tumble needs an opposed roll is "game value." "Game value" is basically an indicator of what does a rule change add to your game.

I don't feel a Tumble check would add anything to my game. It would just be another dice mechanic for me to remember.

As I stated too many times, as you get higher level Tumble becomes a relatively useless skill save for isolating yourself. Any DM worth his salt will have the BBEG hammer you hard or one of his minions do so if you Tumble into sneak attack position.

I fail to see anyone, including Pax, noting how often this happens in high level play. Rogues, Bards and Monks have a hard enough time surviving high level combat. I would love to hear how your Rogue, Bard or Monk utilized Tumble to survive high end Fort and Will saves.

From what it sounds like to me, Pax is playing in a soft campaign that lets players get away with murder. I don't play in one of those campaigns and alot of the time I use my Tumble skill to even get a chance to enter combat after the fighters draw the ire of the creature. It doesn't take much to kill a Rogue, Bard or Monk. Do you acknowledge this reality or do you plan to give me a BS example of the exceptional Rogue who happens to have a better AC than the fighter? It certainly doesn't happen that often in the campaigns I play in.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Ever try and run a detachment of City Watch trying to CATCH a rogue of 5th or higher level? Ever tried it in an EPIC setting, even? I mean, if even EPIC City Watch characters can't hope to stop the rogue from merrily tumbling on by ... there's a problem.

You only tumble at half speed, therefore after the double move away you are only a single moves distance from them.

The guard then move next to you and ready an action. You try to tumble away again and all the readied actions go off stunning, tripping, grappling or killing you (depending on how much you've irritated the guard).


You are entirely correct there is no direct counter to tumbling just as there is no direct counter to casting defensively (non-core rule feats aside). So what? There are thousands of ways people can react to tumble just as there are thousands of ways people can react to casting defensively.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You only tumble at half speed, therefore after the double move away you are only a single moves distance from them.

Unless you're a good tumbler, in which case you can take the -10 and tumble at full speed.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Not at all. In fact, if my position could not be changed with reasonable argument, I wouldn't bother to post.

Hence why I said "rarely". I'm personally too lazy to try to sway those few people whose minds are actually as open as they say they are.