Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 1104111" data-attributes="member: 5834">reYou completely ignored the other reasons I stated and took one out of context. I stated multiple reasons why I didn't see an opposed Tumble checks as necessary.1. The classes who possess this as a class skill are generally weak combatants with lower hit points and AC than the monsters or main fighters. I always felt the skill was made relatively easy because any opposed check would make the skill nigh on unuseable at high levels when it is needed the most making the Rogue, Monk and Bard obsolete attackers given their lower base attack and the extremely high AC of enemies. The flank bonus and ability to move using Tumble increase their combat viability and survivability.2. It is possible to ready an action to halt a tumbler by grappling them or hurt them very badly, even moreso at high levels given the number of creatures with special attacks. It is even possible to ready a spell such as a Wall of Force or Fire to stop them from tumbling as well. Plenty of counters to Tumble if it becomes a problem in your campaign.3. With the new movement mechanic, a tumbler won't even be able to Tumble past extremely large creatures without a double movement (save for monks who don't get sneak attack).4. With the new obstruction modifier, Tumbling through a creature will always be higher than 25, and tumbling through multiple creatures will be extremely high. I count the creature itself as an obstruction. 5. It is limited to wearers of light armor who are unencumbered. That severely limits armor choices further reducing high AC for many who possess this skill in most campaigns (save for the monk). 6. It is an additional opposed dice mechanic. The less dice I have to roll the happier I am. This is purely personal preference and the weakest resaon. Probably why you chose it from the rest.7. It adds nothing to my game considering that versimilitude would not be helped because in a real fight, tumbling doesn't work. Tumbling is best left for Kung Fu theatre and cheesy action flicks, which to me is exactly what D&D combat often is. Why make it harder than it needs to be when it is a completely cinematic skill.8. Rogues have weak will and fort saves leaving them open to many special attacks that will leave them helpless or worse. Let them have their fun tumbling into sneak attack position, they get to do it less and less at the higher levels. Bards have no real reason to get into flank position, they are not particularly great combatants and could help the party a great deal more in other ways. Monks are monks, they should be high flying. 9. If they officially institute an opposed tumble check I'll use it. I'm neither vehemently for nor against an opposed tumble check. I just assumed Andy Collins is an experienced DM who understood that an opposed Tumble roll might be more balanced, but less fun for rogues. As I've stated numerous times, Rogues are easily killed and hurt in high level play. I think Andy Collins knows this and made the tumble check easy just for this reason. Tumble is most effective for a monk, but more necessary for a rogue. Why make it harder for the rogue than it needs to be?I just feel making an opposed Tumble check a house rule is unncessary. The skill isn't a problem in my campaign and it is a life saver for the classes that have it. Rogues, monks and bards are amongst the weakest of combatants because most DM's are going to design their BBEG's based on the fighters BAB with bonuses and AC leaving these three classes automatically less effective in combat against the BBEG. I say let them have their fun with the cannon fodder and lesser BBEG's Tumbling about and using sneak attack, gaining a flank bonus, etc, etc.Tumbling is not that big a deal, even less so in 3.5. It only increases survivability for the classes who have it. The biggest beneficiary of tumble is the rogue because it allows them to move into position for sneak attack and get out of combat if they have to (which they often have to at higher level).  The only two reasons I see given for including an opposed tumble check are the following:1. It increases verisimilitude, basically meaning it should be more difficult to tumble past a higher level creature or enemy NPC. As I stated, you don't tumble in real fights, it doesn't work. It would not increase verisimilitude for me who has been in fights and knows tumbling is mostly a very good way to knock yourself prone or throw yourself offbalance. About the only time you should be tumbling is if you are thrown and trained to fall and quickly regain your feet using a roll or have to jump out of the way of an oncoming object you can't evade with running.Now, if you are talking about "cinematic reality", it might be more challenging or interesting to require an opposed tumble check, but hardly necessary to increase verisimilitude. 2. There is no meaningful reason to raise the skill after a certain point due to the static DC's. IMO, this is a better reason to include an opposed Tumble check. I don't like it when a skill becomes so easy to use their is no reason to advance it.But, I can see why they didn't make Tumble an opposed roll. A rogue has many skills to build up, and adding another would overextend even a rogue's skill points. The other classes who have it don't benefit anywhere near as much as a rogue, so the skill is no big deal.We also use many of the skill uses in Oriental Adventures which encourages a rogue to increase their Tumble skill so they can do stuff like regain their feat as a free action. That's my $.02.</blockquote>

Verification