Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1107448" data-attributes="member: 1757">Celtavian, Please explain how these statements:harmonize with these:It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either Tumble must be key to a rogue's viability (in which case he should max it out) or it isn't.Incidentally, Tumble is incredibly deadly when used by monks, who ALSO happen to have a perfectly good Hit Die and often the best ACs in the game. The monk's combat options (Stunning Fist, Improved Trip, etc.) are also quite deadly, especially to casters, when combined with Tumble. By your argument, shouldn't the much-more-defensively-capable monk use different tumbling rules from those for the rogue? Either the skill must be balanced for all classes who get it, or it's unworkable.And I reiterate; these are not game options specifically geared toward tumblers, and thus no more relevant toward a game-mechanics discussion of tumbling than to a discussion of any other option.Good as in balanced, challenging, and fun for all parties. Making Tumble an auto-success is fun for the rogue player. It's a bitch for the flanked fighter or wizard player.My point being that, while evasion and tumbling are both abilities that add to cinematic combat regardless of verisimilitude, evasion isn't automatic by medium levels, whereas tumble is. The DC for evasion is set by the opposing caster; why shouldn't the DC for Tumble be set by the opposing fighter/rogue/whatever?1) I don't see how AoOs impact worse on monks, who usually have great ACs and hit dice on par with the ranger or cleric, than on anyone else. 2) AoOs also badly affect clerics and wizards. Neither of these classes receives Tumble as a class skill. 3) Most importantly, I still don't see how "It sucks to get AoO'd as a rogue" translates to "the rogue should be as easily able to avoid AoO from powerful opponents as from weak ones, regardless of the rogue's own level."Interesting. Our gameplay must differ a LOT. The heavy fighters IMC often don't actually get to go; the rogues and monks hide themselves to the hilt, scout ahead, and coordinate devastating tumble/stunning/sneak attacks while the casters unleash spells from range. By the time the barbarians and tanks charge in, it's usually all over.You've got issues with your monk players, then. Monks are THE defense option characters, played well. Good saves + SR + multiple abilities to AC + improved evasion + speed = a very survivable PC.But the point is that they run NO RISK OF TAKING AoOs AT ALL under current mechanics. That's just boring. An opposed roll still makes monks and rogues much, much better at avoiding AoOs than a fighter; in fact, it highly privileges those who spend the skill points to do so. Under the current rules, a fighter can splash out on a +10 skill item, spend 2 skill points a level on tumbling (after all, what does a fighter have to spend points on otherwise?) and be able to Tumble exactly as well as a rogue or monk for purposes of avoiding AoOs (that is, perfectly) by 12th level or so. Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack go a long way. And again, we have a danger sign here; any skill that allows you to do better than Spring Attack, a third-tier feat, in avoiding AoOs with a relatively non-significant investment is probably too good. As would I. It's caused spending the skill points and taking the risk. I didn't say that. What I said is that it's irrelevant to how easy it should be to Tumble. In fact, maybe you'd be doing your foolhardy rogues a favor by making the DC for Tumbling against powerful foes (i.e., into bad situations) higher.But most things do, especially in the context of combat maneuvers with direct and potentially deadly results.  It is a game after all. Static skill DCs tend to involve things like climbing specific kinds of slopes and crafting thunderstones, not running circles around opponents and avoiding AoOs.See, and this is the point. If you really believe this, then an opposed-roll system is still going to allow your tumblers to have fun with the cannon fodder (who realistically aren't going to be rolling attacks high enough to beat the tumbers' checks) but will make it harder for them to waltz past tough opponents with well built front lines.However, I guess we are agreeing to disagree (sigh). If you want the rules alternative I suggest, it's on p.90 of AU.</blockquote>

Verification