Fixing Tumble

[StreamOfTheSky]

First off, one of the main issues is whether tumble needs a "solution." The game assumes that after a few levels, you can generally tumble safely. To change that would cause some major consequences on how the acrobatic classes play, and I've still yet to see a convincing argument that even with the easy tumble DCs, such classes fare so well in melee.

#1: Opposed Check
Make Tumble, when used to move through threatened/occupied spaces, an opposed check. The tumbler makes his check and every person threatening/occupying a space he moves through makes a check. The tumbler stops at whoever, if anyone, beats his check. But what skill can you use to oppose the check that would be fair to all classes?

The only skill that is a class skill for all classes is Craft, the only other one that comes close is Profession. Neither would be appropriate. So, we select two skills that are class skills for all classes and appropriate to use to challenge a Tumble check. I say Concentration and Jump, every class has either of these as class skills. Concentration allows the person to concentrate on the tumbler, observing their movements and most likely path of movement. A successful check there indicates the character knows where the tumbler is moving and intercepts either placing himself or a weapon in the path of the tumbler to stop their movement. Jump would work along the same lines in that they simply jump in the way of the tumbler and stop him thusly.

This would make tumbling a challenge, not a given the way it is now. Tumblers are still likely to succeed but its no longer an automatic success. Static DCs for skills that increase are poorly devised. This solves that problem.

Or you could just make an "anti-tumble" skill and add it to the lists of classes that you think should be good at stopping tumble. I think that was a Song and Silence suggestion. Sure, the ability to stop a Tumble is less useful to a person than the ability to tumble, so few would put in as many ranks for the defensive side. But that just kind of mirrors Bluff/Sense Motive. To anyone who needs to lie, bluff is invaluable. Only a dedicated few would bother maxing SM just to defend against it. In any case, winning against tumble should NOT stop the tumbler's motion, it should just let the succeeding character(s) take the AoOs that the tumbler would have provoked normally. If you don't tumble at all, getting attacked doesn't halt your movement (without feats like Stand Still).

Solution #2: Modify the Skill Check
The other solution is to give more modifiers to the static tumble DCs than just the +1-2 for terrain or number of people tumbling past/through. What modifiers:

** The initiative modifiers of the people being tumbled past (Dex, plus improved initiative and any other modifiers to the person's initiative score).

Why doesn't the Tumbler get these as well then, instead of just the tumblee?

** Allow the Stability racial ability for dwarves to increase the DC since Dwarves are basically living breathing brick walls.

Maybe for moving through their squares, but not the ones around them.

** Size: -4 to the DC for every size the target is larger than the tumbler. No modifier for moving past equal or smaller sized targets. And moving through smaller targets would be an overrun or trample and not a tumble check.

You can leap over their heads with a somersault? Overrun/Trample are completely separate mechanics and I don't think there exists a way for them to avoid an AoO, which is the whole point of tumble. They instead overpower the defender, knocking them prone as you drive past or somesuch.

** Haste: Add the +4 AC bonus for Hasted targets to the DC of the check. Haste increases their reaction toward incoming attacks, it should also increase their reaction time toward incoming tumblers.

Haste only adds +1 AC. And if it doesn't add to initiative, why would it add to other forms of "reaction time"?

For either suggestion, I'd allow a tumbler with Mobility to add that +4 bonus to his tumble check since mobility is essentially trying to move around/past/through targets without getting hit.

A good suggestion, it'd be nice if Mobility was actually useful to a tumbler.

These options should also add a degree of excitement and tension to what has otherwise turned into an automatic, dreaded/boring/ho-hum action.

After a while the Fighter tends to only miss his first attack on a 1 or if he takes a large PA/CE amount, except against certain foes more geared towards defense. Isn't that also kind of ho-hum and boring?

My only problem with the other suggestions is with what Streamofthesky writes. His reasoning is basically the cheesy quote from old movies that "only a ninja can stop a ninja"--except in this case, only a tumbler can stop a tumbler. That's not even close to being true. And even the ninja thing is proven false by an episode of the Deadliest Warrior that had a Trojan warrior kicking a ninja's ass!

That episode was bs, frankly. The ninja wouldn't keep fighting after losing the element of surprise, he'd run and pick a better opportunity later. And when the main measure of weapon effectiveness is killing potential, you're kinda hamstrung when the show decides for 1 of your 4 weapons to use something that is incapable of killing... Also, it was a Spartan Warrior, not a Trojan. If you want to crack a joke, get your facts straight.

His suggestion that two classes (Knight and Crusader) are able to stop tumblers is puzzling? Why only them? Why not a Fighter (the epitome of combat training) or even a Ranger (the D&D version of Special Forces)? Why not a Barbarian? I could see Arnold--I mean Conan, punching someone or chopping in half someone trying to flip past him! This only makes a couple of classes more powerful and doesn't resolve the issue which lies with the Tumble skill itself.

I'm saying there's already classes to use if you want ot challenge the tumbler. Note it's my opinion that challing a tumbler isn't something that should happen frequently. Just on occasion, to spicen things up. I don't have a problem with a Rogue dancing past melee brutes most of the time, only to once in a while face a fellow acrobat and find it difficult to outwit him with his motions.

His two houserules are also poorly devised. First, they rely on his "only a ninja..." premise in that they require other tumblers to use. Second, they further break the tumble skill by causing the tumbler to provoke an AoO that allows a counter-tumble. The purpose of a tumble check is to avoid AoOs. That's why its there. Now making them draw AoOs doesn't balance the skill but only breaks it more.

Wait, what? My houserules allow a successful counter-tumble check to effectively negate the benefit of the tumbling, so the character is prone to the AoO(s) he would have provoked. Failing to tumble well isn't causing AoOs, it means he's vulnerable to the ones he's already provoking for his movement.

I don't agree with him that monks rely on tumbling, but maybe that's just the games he's been in, not me. I've had dozens of players use tumbling, but I've never had anyone rely on it.

I've seen monks tricked out with Imp Natural Attack (unarmed strike), enlarged, high str... And you know what? Devastating as their flurry of blows was, against any decent Fighter, Barbarian, giant, or similar focused brute, said monks would die if they traded full attacks and so needed the ability to hit and run. It's also useful when the foe is using a reach weapon, since you're limited ot your natural reach with unarmed strike. Just my experience.

He further argues that the better a tumbler, the better they are at stopping one. Again, false. Tumblers learn to tumble, they don't learn to stop other tumblers. All anyone needs to do to stop a tumbler is get in their way or put something in their way that throws off their balance or momentum. Anyone can do that. Kids are masters at getting underfoot even when someone is just walking! So, if a child can get in the way WITHOUT training, so could a wizard or paladin or anyone else!

I'm not arguing for BAB vs. Tumble, but I don't believe Streamofthesky hasn't heard or thought of how combat skill could stop a tumbler. Does he really believe that putting a sword blade in someone's face, a tower shield in front of them (or upside their head if they try to move past you), or just sitting down on someone when they dive between your legs isn't going to stop a tumbler? You don't even need to shield bash someone doing a cartwheel, a light shove will have them eating dirt!

Actually, while I am still a novice, I HAVE trained in Capoeira, a rather acrobatic martial art. One of the main goals in any Capoeira fight is to get behind the person. If you can do so, you've effectively won the match. We are taught not only different means of getting around a person's guard, but also how to notice when someone's doing it to us and how to react. Do I think tumbling and acrobatics is practical when the other guy is in mail, and has a longsword and heavy shield? No, of course not in real life. I also wouldn't want to try attacking such a person unarmed if I could avoid it, no matter how many years I've practiced fighting unarmed. And yet, the game allows me, with relatively novice-level training, to do both. The game is not perfectly realistic. But the game designers thought you should be able to do both, so here we are. I'm just sick of the fearsome warrior logic. If the guy's not even trained in tumble, and his only experience wiht it is seeing the party rogue do it, then why should he be good at preventing it? A good acrobat/tumbler, if he lost momentum or got blocked in his first attempt, would keep his balance and flow into another attempt at going around, perhaps recognizing the first attempt doomed the instant he starts going that way, and so instead only movs a flinch and uses it as a diversion for the new route. If the guy with weapons is scary to tumble past, I'd be terrified of tumbling past a wizard with fire shield! Ow!

I also find it kind of hypocritical of you to call automatically succeeding at tumbling boring, and yet also want to make moving around in combat less appealing by making it harder to avoid AoO's. If I can just stand still and full attack the big tank guy, why should I take a fair risk of an AoO to disengage from melee? May as well just trade full attacks until I'm badly injured and need to withdraw. Sounds exciting! Note other systems like Iron Heroes that sought to make combat more dynamic and interesting increased the benefits of moving around a lot.

All you have to do is watch just about any MMA fight. Watch someone try to get by a guy good at jiujutsu, that person isn't getting out of his roll or flip without a broken arm or two and not before screaming like a girl! Actually, bad example, MMA fighters are not stupid enough to try something like that against an opponent.

Yeah, if you tumble badly, the opponent gets an AoO as you leave his threatened square, the same as just moving without tumble, which he could then use to attempt to start a grapple. Are you suggesting that tumbling leaves you open/vulnerable, compared to just casually walking away from an opponent? Why does anyone bother ot tumble at all, then? Walk away, get stabbed for a few damage. Try to tumble, and your arm's getting broken.

So, yeah, martial prowess has tons to do with being able to stop a tumbler. Its just that the current rules for the Tumble skill do not reflect that. Hence, the OPs reason for starting this thread.

And again, BAB alone does not measure martial prowess that well. Lots of big, dumb, bumbling things have a lot of BAB for their CR. Some sort of BAB : HD ratio would do a better job, but would be hard to represent as some sort of mathematic +/- to tumble DC. Could say that medium BAB = +0 DC modifier, full BAB = +x, and poor BAB = -x, but multiclassing mucks that up.

 

[Hawken]

First off, one of the main issues is whether tumble needs a "solution." The game assumes that after a few levels, you can generally tumble safely. To change that would cause some major consequences on how the acrobatic classes play, and I've still yet to see a convincing argument that even with the easy tumble DCs, such classes fare so well in melee.

Well, the OP needs a solution, so, for the sake of this thread (since the OP asked for one), we can say yes.

Changing tumble would not cause major consequences. One of the biggest problems in 3.x skills is a fixed DC for scaling skills. The DC is the same whether the tumbler is trying to get past a house cat or a Hill Giant Reaping Mauler. It shouldn't be that way. The target's reaction speed, size, etc. should be a definite factor in the success of a tumbling check. Or at least make it an opposed check. You could be an Olympian class acrobat, but if you try to move past me or through me, it just ain't gonna happen!

Or you could just make an "anti-tumble" skill and add it to the lists of classes that you think should be good at stopping tumble. I think that was a Song and Silence suggestion. Sure, the ability to stop a Tumble is less useful to a person than the ability to tumble, so few would put in as many ranks for the defensive side. But that just kind of mirrors Bluff/Sense Motive. To anyone who needs to lie, bluff is invaluable. Only a dedicated few would bother maxing SM just to defend against it. In any case, winning against tumble should NOT stop the tumbler's motion, it should just let the succeeding character(s) take the AoOs that the tumbler would have provoked normally. If you don't tumble at all, getting attacked doesn't halt your movement (without feats like Stand Still).

There's no need for a new skill when you can change the existing skill to an opposed check or give it more modifiers. And there are already far too many skills and not enough skill points to go around, you want to bring more skills in then you have to start giving out more skill points.

And winning against tumble DEFINITELY should stop the tumble. If that tumbler gets hit, he instantly goes prone. The hit doesn't even need to inflict damage. If he collides with something he can't go through (tower shield or ogre come to mind), his tumble stops. And especially if he takes a hit and actually gets damaged (whether from an AoO or a readied action), then he especially should be stopped.

Why doesn't the Tumbler get these as well then, instead of just the tumblee?

The tumbler already gets his dex added into his tumble check. And using initiative actually makes sense since you roll initiative to see how fast your character reacts to things going on around him (the start of combat). The tumbler's tumble check is basically, his kind of initiative; if he pulls off his check, then he did it better and faster to the point where the tumblee was unable to react in time to stop him. If he didn't, then the tumblee was able to react and get in the way or otherwise interfere with the tumbling enough to stop it.

Maybe for moving through their squares, but not the ones around them.

That was my original intention, just forgot to mention it.

And moving through smaller targets would be an overrun or trample and not a tumble check.

My reason for this statement was more real world physics than game mechanics. If a larger person moves into a space occupied by a smaller person, that smaller person is getting squashed or displaced and has virtually no chance of stopping the larger person. You want to leave it at Tumble fine, in actuality, it would be an overrun or trample.

Haste only adds +1 AC.

My bad for having NWN 1 on the brain. And I threw it in based on the flavor of it more than the mechanics. Haste speeds you up. You are able to move and react faster. Because you can react to things faster, you get an AC bonus--same reasoning for the tumblee, a hasted tumblee can react faster to the tumbler, so haste should provide some bonus.

A good suggestion, it'd be nice if Mobility was actually useful to a tumbler.

Agreed. The only downside is that if a tumbler has Mobility, they are one step away from Spring Attack which means they've, for the most part, wasted their ranks in Tumble.

After a while the Fighter tends to only miss his first attack on a 1 or if he takes a large PA/CE amount, except against certain foes more geared towards defense. Isn't that also kind of ho-hum and boring?

Actually, I've run enough games (table top and online) to know that the fighters that get overconfident and bored with that first hit quickly die. I've seen PCs with some crazy a$$ AC scores at 10th level that fighters would have a hard time with, and I've seen more 1s rolled on online games than in real life. So, no, can't say that that ever gets boring. Besides, we were talking tumbling, and with a guaranteed success by 2nd or 3rd level, yeah, that gets boring.

That episode was bs, frankly. The ninja wouldn't keep fighting after losing the element of surprise, he'd run and pick a better opportunity later. And when the main measure of weapon effectiveness is killing potential, you're kinda hamstrung when the show decides for 1 of your 4 weapons to use something that is incapable of killing... Also, it was a Spartan Warrior, not a Trojan. If you want to crack a joke, get your facts straight.

That show is a joke and I was using it just to make a point about ninjas. I could piss off any Greeks reading this and say Trojan or Spartan, doesn't make a difference, but I don't want to; Greek women are hot and I prefer them hot instead of angry. The point was, on that show, the ninja got his ass kicked. Badly. By a non-ninja.

Tangent: Some of the weapons they use on the Deadliest Warrior are a joke. I've seen them give people slingshots! Really! The deadliest warrior, bad-ass of bad-asses...has a slingshot! Yeah!

I'm saying there's already classes to use if you want ot challenge the tumbler. Note it's my opinion that challing a tumbler isn't something that should happen frequently. Just on occasion, to spicen things up. I don't have a problem with a Rogue dancing past melee brutes most of the time, only to once in a while face a fellow acrobat and find it difficult to outwit him with his motions.

That's just the thing. Rogue's shouldn't be able to 'dance' past anyone not also a rogue (or monk or bard). Otherwise, they should have just made tumble a class ability and not a skill. And no one want to play a class just to stomp on an acrobat. And it doesn't have to be an opposed roll if the DM doesn't want it to be, but the DC of the check definitely should reflect just who the tumbler is tumbling past.

Wait, what? My houserules allow a successful counter-tumble check to effectively negate the benefit of the tumbling, so the character is prone to the AoO(s) he would have provoked. Failing to tumble well isn't causing AoOs, it means he's vulnerable to the ones he's already provoking for his movement.

No. The action is moving through a threatened/occupied space. The tumble check is to attempt to prevent drawing an AoO. Your houserule is that the tumble check itself is drawing an AoO (your counter-tumble) for attempting something that would otherwise prevent an AoO. That's like saying a rogue tries to move silently and then gets a listen check to try and hear the guard that is getting a listen check for the rogue moving silently.

Actions that try to prevent AoOs do not draw AoOs. Otherwise, what's the point? The only action that draws the AoO is the movement. The tumble skill represents a special form of that movement that may prevent the AoO. You're giving an AoO for the type of movement, and then possibly another for the movement itself. Which the rules specifically forbid. An action can only draw 1 attack of opportunity from one person.

I've seen monks tricked out with Imp Natural Attack (unarmed strike), enlarged, high str... And you know what? Devastating as their flurry of blows was, against any decent Fighter, Barbarian, giant, or similar focused brute, said monks would die if they traded full attacks and so needed the ability to hit and run. It's also useful when the foe is using a reach weapon, since you're limited ot your natural reach with unarmed strike. Just my experience.

Depends on the monk, honestly. And monks usually aren't the only fighter in a group, so they never have to solo barbarians and giants, nor do they sit there and trade blows. Plus, they have plenty of other options as well (trip, grapple, etc.), not just bashing stuff. Hell, I played a monk on EQ and EQII (same basic premise/difference in D&D) that kicked the butts of things that fighters of the same or greater level were afraid to tackle. Done the same in D&D too.

Actually, while I am still a novice, I HAVE trained in Capoeira, a rather acrobatic martial art. One of the main goals in any Capoeira fight is to get behind the person. If you can do so, you've effectively won the match. We are taught not only different means of getting around a person's guard, but also how to notice when someone's doing it to us and how to react. Do I think tumbling and acrobatics is practical when the other guy is in mail, and has a longsword and heavy shield? No, of course not in real life. I also wouldn't want to try attacking such a person unarmed if I could avoid it, no matter how many years I've practiced fighting unarmed. And yet, the game allows me, with relatively novice-level training, to do both. The game is not perfectly realistic. But the game designers thought you should be able to do both, so here we are. I'm just sick of the fearsome warrior logic. If the guy's not even trained in tumble, and his only experience wiht it is seeing the party rogue do it, then why should he be good at preventing it? A good acrobat/tumbler, if he lost momentum or got blocked in his first attempt, would keep his balance and flow into another attempt at going around, perhaps recognizing the first attempt doomed the instant he starts going that way, and so instead only movs a flinch and uses it as a diversion for the new route. If the guy with weapons is scary to tumble past, I'd be terrified of tumbling past a wizard with fire shield! Ow!

The thing is, you don't have to be trained in tumble to knock someone down (linebacker comes to mind). You just have to whack them or shove them and down they go. If capoeira teaches you to keep your balance after being knocked, cool.

I've never advocated the 'fearsome warrior' logic. All I've stated is that the difficulty of the tumble check should be measured by the danger of the person you're tumbling against, not a flat DC. That flat DC is the biggest issue that anyone with an issue with the tumble skill has.

Conversely, you're ignoring the danger of a warrior as well (and anyone else not trained in tumble). The tumbler could tumble past a farmer easily, sure; and even probably an experienced warrior, but tumbling past the warrior should be more difficult than the farmer.

I'm not calling auto success at anything boring (it is though), the point was that making something like tumble more challenging would add some excitement. And I don't want to make moving around less appealing. But it should be what it should be. Trying to move past or through someone trying to kill you should never be so easy that you don't even have to roll a dice to succeed at it. Does it have to be difficult no; challenging, maybe; but a cakewalk, never--unless its like a commoner or a henchman or something like that. Then again, Han Solo did step on a branch while trying to sneak up to a stormtrooper that had his back to him. Bad luck can happen.

And again, BAB alone does not measure martial prowess that well. Lots of big, dumb, bumbling things have a lot of BAB for their CR. Some sort of BAB : HD ratio would do a better job, but would be hard to represent as some sort of mathematic +/- to tumble DC. Could say that medium BAB = +0 DC modifier, full BAB = +x, and poor BAB = -x, but multiclassing mucks that up.

BAB DOES measure it well, even better when used in conjunction with some feats. However, in this case it does not, nor have I advocated that it does. My points about combat were made as counter-points to your argument that combat prowess doesn't matter. In neither of my solution to the tumble issue did I advocate using anything but a skill against another skill. Its not about combat ability, its about the target's ability to interfere with the tumble. The AoO that may follow is about combat ability.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Changing tumble would not cause major consequences. One of the biggest problems in 3.x skills is a fixed DC for scaling skills. The DC is the same whether the tumbler is trying to get past a house cat or a Hill Giant Reaping Mauler. It shouldn't be that way. The target's reaction speed, size, etc. should be a definite factor in the success of a tumbling check. Or at least make it an opposed check. You could be an Olympian class acrobat, but if you try to move past me or through me, it just ain't gonna happen!

Speaking of that house cat and the hill giant, guess what? Both probably have the same exact chance to tumble to avoid an AoO themselves -- zero. Because tumble is a trained skill, and no matter how powerful or awesome you are, without training in it, you can't tumble. So in the case of tumble, combat skill or power or dex score does not automatically grant you a god-given right to do acrobatics. So why should it be different for opposing tumble?

There's no need for a new skill when you can change the existing skill to an opposed check or give it more modifiers. And there are already far too many skills and not enough skill points to go around, you want to bring more skills in then you have to start giving out more skill points.

See, I like fixed DCs that are manageable because skill points are precious, and having these beatable DCs means a PC isn't forced to keep plunking points into the same skills level after level just to keep up. And thank you for agreeing that putting points into Tumble is most definitely an expense. So clearly, you agree that any method to counter it should not be based on BAB or something else creatures get for free at level up, right?
And yes, you could also just make tumble counter itself, instead of making a new skill. It's just that some people didn't seem to like the idea of using tumble itself, so I suggested a new skill focused on foiling it. My houserules use Tumble against Tumble.

And winning against tumble DEFINITELY should stop the tumble. If that tumbler gets hit, he instantly goes prone. The hit doesn't even need to inflict damage. If he collides with something he can't go through (tower shield or ogre come to mind), his tumble stops. And especially if he takes a hit and actually gets damaged (whether from an AoO or a readied action), then he especially should be stopped.

Per the RAW, if you fail the Tumble check, you suffer AoOs but your movement is not halted. So why, if someone were to win an opposed check to prevent your tumble, should your movement be ended? To me, both should have the same result. And prematurely ending a creature's movement is a very powerful ability and an extremely harsh penalty to give to tumble. If it were me, and I had to choose between Tumbling with anything below a 75% chance of success or just moving and taking the AoO (probably with Mobility, cause if tumble's getting nerfed, may as well go for spring attack), I'd definitely choose to just not tumble. The whole point is to get away from the enemy. If failure means you can't...why bother?

The tumbler already gets his dex added into his tumble check. And using initiative actually makes sense since you roll initiative to see how fast your character reacts to things going on around him (the start of combat). The tumbler's tumble check is basically, his kind of initiative; if he pulls off his check, then he did it better and faster to the point where the tumblee was unable to react in time to stop him. If he didn't, then the tumblee was able to react and get in the way or otherwise interfere with the tumbling enough to stop it.

That's fine, I'm just saying if one side is adding initiative mod, both sides should be doing so. I think it's an unnecessary complication myself, but it makes sense to add it if you want.

My reason for this statement was more real world physics than game mechanics. If a larger person moves into a space occupied by a smaller person, that smaller person is getting squashed or displaced and has virtually no chance of stopping the larger person. You want to leave it at Tumble fine, in actuality, it would be an overrun or trample.

I've seen 6+ ft tall, at least 250 lb (mostly muscle) mestres do graceful somersaults and headslides...so yeah, even when larger, it doesn't necessarily mean the big guy can't get past the smaller guy with agility. I'd rather argue game mechanics, but if you want to talk about real life, I've actually witnessed much larger people "tumble" around or over smaller ones.

Actually, I've run enough games (table top and online) to know that the fighters that get overconfident and bored with that first hit quickly die. I've seen PCs with some crazy a$$ AC scores at 10th level that fighters would have a hard time with, and I've seen more 1s rolled on online games than in real life. So, no, can't say that that ever gets boring. Besides, we were talking tumbling, and with a guaranteed success by 2nd or 3rd level, yeah, that gets boring.

By 2nd or 3rd? 6 ranks + 4 dex (being generous) +2 synergy (jump) = +12. Still not automatic with max ranks, synergy, and very good dex until level 5. As for the Fighters, if a Rogue or Monk thinks auto-tumbling means he's safe, he'll likely die quickly, too. Giving distance just means the Barbarian gets to use that nifty leap attack feat on you... Really, the only fighting archetype that gets screwed over by tumblers is TWF w/o a means to pounce. And to be fair...a LOT of characters can make their schtick worthless. A regular tank or 2H Fighter, any Barbarian, any archer Ranger, and probably even any Paladin (especially if foe is evil) could trade blows with a tumbling monk or rogue (who is thus only getting one attack per round, although I guess against the archer he may as well just stay in melee) and win the vast majority of the time.

That show is a joke and I was using it just to make a point about ninjas. I could piss off any Greeks reading this and say Trojan or Spartan, doesn't make a difference, but I don't want to; Greek women are hot and I prefer them hot instead of angry. The point was, on that show, the ninja got his ass kicked. Badly. By a non-ninja.

On that same show the pirate beat the knight even though the only pirate weapon that even managed to pierce the knight's armor 1) didn't get tested with the shield to take away some of the force; 2) misfired several times; 3) proved to be very innaccurate; 4) only got a single shot. Whether you're joking or trying to make a serious point, the results of that show prove absolutely nothing.

And why did you even start this ninja thing, anyway? I've never heard anyone complain, "Apparantly WotC thinks only a Forger can defeat another Forger. But on Most Scathing Quill the Skald's prose annihilated Forgery Artist's falsified certificates in the head to head write-off!"

That's just the thing. Rogue's shouldn't be able to 'dance' past anyone not also a rogue (or monk or bard). Otherwise, they should have just made tumble a class ability and not a skill.

It could be done that way...
And the person wouldn't be playing a class just to stop tumblers. Whether it's taking ranks in a single skill to counter it, or specifically taking the classes that already can, that would only be one aspect of the class / skill selection, just as tumbling is to the classes that get it.

No. The action is moving through a threatened/occupied space. The tumble check is to attempt to prevent drawing an AoO. Your houserule is that the tumble check itself is drawing an AoO (your counter-tumble) for attempting something that would otherwise prevent an AoO. That's like saying a rogue tries to move silently and then gets a listen check to try and hear the guard that is getting a listen check for the rogue moving silently.

Actions that try to prevent AoOs do not draw AoOs. Otherwise, what's the point? The only action that draws the AoO is the movement. The tumble skill represents a special form of that movement that may prevent the AoO. You're giving an AoO for the type of movement, and then possibly another for the movement itself. Which the rules specifically forbid. An action can only draw 1 attack of opportunity from one person.

Maybe I need to write it more clearly. The intent was that the person with Combat Reflexes can use an AoO to try to counter the opponent's tumble attempt. It's not that tumble is provoking an AoO, the CR guy is potentially getting back the AoO he should have had from the tumbler's movement. The defender is expending an AoO to try and prevent the tumbling. If he succeeds, the tumbler provokes AoOs fo his movement. The tumbler is not provoking two AoOs.

The thing is, you don't have to be trained in tumble to knock someone down (linebacker comes to mind). You just have to whack them or shove them and down they go. If capoeira teaches you to keep your balance after being knocked, cool.

The basic ideal would be, if you get swept or taken down, you roll through with the motion and don't stop moving, getting back to your feet. Obviously, doing that is difficult, but I've seen other people roll out of a take down without stopping or pausing. And when I suggest opposed tumble rolls, it doesn't necessarily mean physical action. It could mean the tumbler tries to fake one direction and then go another, and the defender is merely reading that and putting himself in the right position. It wouldn't always involve some sort of somersaulting in stereo or whatever.

Conversely, you're ignoring the danger of a warrior as well (and anyone else not trained in tumble). The tumbler could tumble past a farmer easily, sure; and even probably an experienced warrior, but tumbling past the warrior should be more difficult than the farmer.

Why? The game has fairly specific feats and class features to be better at controlling the area around yourself. If you have not taken any of these, why should being an experienced warrior matter for much? I thought Combat Reflexes should entail skill at controlling the area you threaten, and houseruled it to give that option. Granted, you also need tumble, but I suppose if you made the ability cost a feat you could base the check on something other than a skill that would cost ranks on top of the feat. But no, I'm strongly against the idea that any level 20 Fighter should be tough to tumble past. I really don't like the 1/2 level ranks 4E gives to skills, I think people should only get better at the things they train in. A level 20 Fighter shouldn't be a great preventer of tumbling without some kind of investment any more than he should be a good rock climber without any skill points in climb.

I'm not calling auto success at anything boring (it is though), the point was that making something like tumble more challenging would add some excitement. And I don't want to make moving around less appealing. But it should be what it should be. Trying to move past or through someone trying to kill you should never be so easy that you don't even have to roll a dice to succeed at it. Does it have to be difficult no; challenging, maybe; but a cakewalk, never--unless its like a commoner or a henchman or something like that. Then again, Han Solo did step on a branch while trying to sneak up to a stormtrooper that had his back to him. Bad luck can happen.

Why is it so bad to let skills do superhuman things after a while? Epic skill usages let you do even crazier things (with much higher DCs). And a level 1 mage could use Benign Transposition to get to the other side of an enemy. Barring that (ally there to swap places with), there's DDoor and other spells. Why can't the Rogue ever reach a level where he can reliably get past a guy? And I don't think auto successes are boring, mainly because I don't find dice rolling the most exciting part of D&D -- I like thinking about what to do with those dice rolls, what actions and reactions to make. "Ok, I tumbled over there. Now what am I going to use that for?" But that's a whole separate discussion.

In neither of my solution to the tumble issue did I advocate using anything but a skill against another skill. Its not about combat ability, its about the target's ability to interfere with the tumble. The AoO that may follow is about combat ability.

Agreed. And if my houserules seem too soft, they're still somewhat new and being playtested. I might make them a little harsher, but anything to prevent tumbling will definitely remain an opposed skill check. And I added those rules more to give a means to counter it for those that were interested than out of any sense that tumble needed to be nerfed.

 

[Hawken]

So why should it be different for opposing tumble?

Because you don't need to be trained in tumble to stop a tumble. All you have to do is know when or what to put something in their way and their tumble either stops or moves away from you. And considering the Hill Giant's reach, he's not going to be too worried about an AoO from anything other than another giant.

You don't need to have a high Bluff score to not fall for a Bluff. You don't even need a high Sense Motive, if you don't want to believe something, you don't have to believe it.

You don't have to have a high Move Silently to stop someone else from moving silently.

You don't need ranks in Survival to stop someone from surviving.

Same principal.

And thank you for agreeing that putting points into Tumble is most definitely an expense. So clearly, you agree that any method to counter it should not be based on BAB or something else creatures get for free at level up, right?

Of course its an expense. Spending anything on anything else is a cost. However, your premise is wrong in that BAB and levelling up are 'free'. Levelling up is a greater expense. There's more involved in levelling up than in improving a skill. However, I will state again, as I have before, that I do not advocate using anything but a skill to oppose a skill. BAB could be a modifier involved in a skill check, but I would never use BAB itself to oppose a skill check.

And yes, you could also just make tumble counter itself, instead of making a new skill. It's just that some people didn't seem to like the idea of using tumble itself, so I suggested a new skill focused on foiling it. My houserules use Tumble against Tumble.

I could definitely see using Tumble to oppose an attempted Tumble check. That totally does make sense. But I do not see it as the only skill to oppose a tumble check.

Per the RAW, if you fail the Tumble check, you suffer AoOs but your movement is not halted.

It is if you are trying to move through someone's space. Sorry for not specifying the difference between moving through and past someone.

If it were me, and I had to choose between Tumbling with anything below a 75% chance of success or just moving and taking the AoO (probably with Mobility, cause if tumble's getting nerfed, may as well go for spring attack), I'd definitely choose to just not tumble.

If you want 100% success, then don't bother with tumble and just get Spring Attack. On the other hand, if the pathetic 15/25 DC is modified by the person you're attempting to tumble past, so what? That's a reason to build up tumble, to be better than others. Otherwise, there's not really any point in working up tumble past level 5 or so.

That's fine, I'm just saying if one side is adding initiative mod, both sides should be doing so. I think it's an unnecessary complication myself, but it makes sense to add it if you want.

The tumbler doesn't need to since he's already started his tumble. I suggested the tumblee get the initiative modifier to see if he can react to tumble in time. If you see it as a complication, that's too bad. Its really a simple concept adding a single modifier in, but then, you don't seem too pleased with my suggestions, so it doesn't matter, does it?

By 2nd or 3rd? 6 ranks + 4 dex (being generous) +2 synergy (jump) = +12. Still not automatic with max ranks, synergy, and very good dex until level 5.

3rd level rogue with 18 or 20 Dex, 6 ranks, +2 synergy and we'll go ahead and say skill focus tumble. That gives a 15 or 16 depending on the exact Dex modifier, which at 2nd or 3rd level is an auto success against DC 15, and you have a 50% chance of success against the DC 25 check. At 2nd level! At 1st, if you want to spend 2 feats on skill focus and greater skill focus. And a 1st level character being able to tumble around the Tarrasque or Asmodeus is pretty damn broken!

As for the Fighters, if a Rogue or Monk thinks auto-tumbling means he's safe, he'll likely die quickly, too. Giving distance just means the Barbarian gets to use that nifty leap attack feat on you... Really, the only fighting archetype that gets screwed over by tumblers is TWF w/o a means to pounce. And to be fair...a LOT of characters can make their schtick worthless. A regular tank or 2H Fighter, any Barbarian, any archer Ranger, and probably even any Paladin (especially if foe is evil) could trade blows with a tumbling monk or rogue (who is thus only getting one attack per round, although I guess against the archer he may as well just stay in melee) and win the vast majority of the time.

So, your justification for the auto-tumble is because they are going to get their butt kicked anyway? That's stupid! That's like saying I should have super speed so once I get into a car accident and break my back, I won't have to spend as much time walking! You don't give someone a special ability (and an auto-success at a skill is pretty much that) just because of a perceived deficiency.

Also, I think you're in the minority thinking that rogues and monks are punks (rhyme unintended). I've seen fellow players craft some wicked rogues and some brutal monks far more than I've seen those classes get abused just because of their class.

On that same show the pirate beat the knight even though the only pirate weapon that even managed to pierce the knight's armor 1) didn't get tested with the shield to take away some of the force; 2) misfired several times; 3) proved to be very innaccurate; 4) only got a single shot. Whether you're joking or trying to make a serious point, the results of that show prove absolutely nothing.

Actually, the pirate one was about the only one I missed. And like I said before, I used it as an example to make an earlier point.

And why did you even start this ninja thing, anyway? I've never heard anyone complain, "Apparantly WotC thinks only a Forger can defeat another Forger. But on Most Scathing Quill the Skald's prose annihilated Forgery Artist's falsified certificates in the head to head write-off!"

As I mentioned, I used the ninja thing as an analogy to your point. You were stating that only a tumbler should be able to stop a tumbler. I compared it to that cheesy line from old martial arts movies "only a ninja can stop a ninja", which is about as cheesy as your point that only a skilled tumbler can stop someone else from tumbling.

Maybe I need to write it more clearly. The intent was that the person with Combat Reflexes can use an AoO to try to counter the opponent's tumble attempt. It's not that tumble is provoking an AoO, the CR guy is potentially getting back the AoO he should have had from the tumbler's movement. The defender is expending an AoO to try and prevent the tumbling. If he succeeds, the tumbler provokes AoOs fo his movement. The tumbler is not provoking two AoOs.

And how exactly is the CR guy going to use an AoO to counter the tumble attempt? What AoO is he going to use because tumbling doesn't draw an AoO and for the CR guy to use an AoO attempt, the tumble check has to be made and failed, which won't happen after 2nd or 3rd level as has already been established.

How is the CR getting 'back' an AoO? If the tumble is successful, the movement doesn't draw an AoO, so where is the CR guy getting his AoO from? And how does he 'expend' an AoO. There is no AoO to expend. The tumbler doesn't provoke one unless his check fails. They aren't something that gets saved up. An AoO is provoked and the attack is either made on the spot or not.

Here's how it works:
#1: Tumbler moves through threatened/occupied area(s). This action would normally provoke an AoO.
#2: As part of his movement, the Tumbler tumbles to avoid provoking an AoO for his movement. So, he makes a tumble check against DC 15 or 25. If successful, no AoO is provoked. If he fails, AoO is provoked, but by then, the tumble has already been completed as the character has suffered the consequences of his tumble attempt.

What you're trying to say is either:
#1: The tumbler provokes an AoO for attempting a tumble skill check instead of his movement provoking the AoO or...
#2: The CR guy gets to make an AoO for the tumbler moving whether or not the tumbler successfully makes his tumble check and if the CR guy hits, then he gets another AoO for the movement that normally would have provoked an AoO.

Why? The game has fairly specific feats and class features to be better at controlling the area around yourself. If you have not taken any of these, why should being an experienced warrior matter for much? I thought Combat Reflexes should entail skill at controlling the area you threaten, and houseruled it to give that option. Granted, you also need tumble, but I suppose if you made the ability cost a feat you could base the check on something other than a skill that would cost ranks on top of the feat. But no, I'm strongly against the idea that any level 20 Fighter should be tough to tumble past. I really don't like the 1/2 level ranks 4E gives to skills, I think people should only get better at the things they train in. A level 20 Fighter shouldn't be a great preventer of tumbling without some kind of investment any more than he should be a good rock climber without any skill points in climb.

Why shouldn't a fighter be more difficult to tumble past than a farmer? Really? You don't see why? You're pulling my leg! I refuse to believe you or anyone not retarded would be unable to understand why a fighter trying to kill you would be harder to flip past than a farmer.

Being an experienced warrior (or any other class) means that you are used to controlling or at least affecting the area around you (hence the 'experience').

What about combat reflexes makes you think they should 'control' the area around them enough to make AoOs where they are not provoked. All the feat does is let you make more than 1 AoO per round. If you're going to extrapolate the ability to make AoO basically at will, I'd almost be interested to see what modifications you have with other feats.

Why are you focusing on fighters? A frickin 20th level wizard wouldn't be easy to tumble past. A DC 15 to move past someone like that. No way.

Why is it so bad to let skills do superhuman things after a while?

You're not talking about doing superhuman things after a while, you're wanting to do it right off the bat!

You need to take a closer look at the skill. If you make a skill check, you performed the technique needed to succeed at your skill. Your technique can be flawless, but that doesn't mean its going to work against someone capable of and able to kill you or knock you down in a single hit. The tumble DC as written allows for no variation, no exception, no allowance for difficulty or challenge and that is what is broken about that aspect of the tumble skill.

Every other skill check acting against another character (except for Diplomacy) is an opposed check. And don't even start on diplomacy, there are plenty of threads out there about how broken that is. If a skill is acting on someone else, it should be an opposed roll, or there should be modifiers to the DC to account for who you are acting against.

And a level 1 mage could use Benign Transposition to get to the other side of an enemy. Barring that (ally there to swap places with), there's DDoor and other spells. Why can't the Rogue ever reach a level where he can reliably get past a guy?

So what about the mage doing that? That's not acting on or against the person he's trying to get around. The rogue (and anyone else) can get to a point where they can reliably get past someone. Its called the Spring Attack feat. If you don't want the rogue to have that, then the rogue should have to build up his tumble skill to account for more dangerous and difficult beings to tumble past, not just dump enough points into it so that by 5th or 6th level, at his laziest, he doesn't even need to roll anymore.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Because you don't need to be trained in tumble to stop a tumble. All you have to do is know when or what to put something in their way and their tumble either stops or moves away from you. And considering the Hill Giant's reach, he's not going to be too worried about an AoO from anything other than another giant.

You don't need to have a high Bluff score to not fall for a Bluff. You don't even need a high Sense Motive, if you don't want to believe something, you don't have to believe it.

You don't have to have a high Move Silently to stop someone else from moving silently.

You don't need ranks in Survival to stop someone from surviving.

Same principal.

Forgery is specifically a skill that opposes itself. If you're going to have Tumble oppose itself, it's a fair comparison. All those other pairs of skills feature one that is "acting" and one that is "reacting." You react to the act of Bluffing with a Sense Motive check. You react to silent movement with a listen check. And so on. If you want to follow that model, there would be a designated "anti-tumble" skill, just as it is for all the pairs you've named. Forgery and Diplomacy can only be beaten by Forgery and Diplomacy, respectively. There is a rules precedence for a skill only being defeated by itself. Not just the ninja thing. I also houseruled Intimidate can be used to defend against Intimidate (when used to demoralize), because it seemed appropriate, to go off-topic a bit. On topic, Tome of Battle made Intimidate partially self-opposed with the Duel of Wills.

Of course its an expense. Spending anything on anything else is a cost. However, your premise is wrong in that BAB and levelling up are 'free'. Levelling up is a greater expense. There's more involved in levelling up than in improving a skill. However, I will state again, as I have before, that I do not advocate using anything but a skill to oppose a skill. BAB could be a modifier involved in a skill check, but I would never use BAB itself to oppose a skill check.

No, I mean BAB comes free with a level up. There is no choosing ot increase your BAB instead of increasing a saving throw or whatever. Some classes get BAB slower, but they still get it for free as part of leveling up. The disparity between poor and full BAB is like the rate of cross class skill ranks versus class skill ranks -- 1/2. You still don't even get cross class ranks for free at level up (that's more like 4E), you have to purchase them. And you can't just dump all your skill points in one skill, it is limited by level just as BAB is. The difference is, you have to spend a resource to increase skills, BAB you simply gain.

But you agree it should be a skill check, so I don't even know why we're still talking about BAB.

It is if you are trying to move through someone's space. Sorry for not specifying the difference between moving through and past someone.

Well, yes, that makes a big difference. I don't even mind if you wanted to make houserules to make tumbling through a person's occupied square harder. I think DC 25 is already really hard for a good while (anything above DC 20 is considered to be too difficult for the average person to ever accomplish, and nearly impossible for an average person trained in the skill), but whatever. I'm more concerned with keeping tumbling through threatened areas relatively safe, because it's my opinion that certain classes and archetypes rely on it. I'm don't care nearly as much about tumbling through people's squares.

3rd level rogue with 18 or 20 Dex, 6 ranks, +2 synergy and we'll go ahead and say skill focus tumble. That gives a 15 or 16 depending on the exact Dex modifier, which at 2nd or 3rd level is an auto success against DC 15, and you have a 50% chance of success against the DC 25 check. At 2nd level! At 1st, if you want to spend 2 feats on skill focus and greater skill focus. And a 1st level character being able to tumble around the Tarrasque or Asmodeus is pretty damn broken!

That 3rd level Rogue is not just some run of the mill Rogue. He's invested a LOT into tumble to be able to get his modifie that high, and must have rolled really well or sunk half or more of his point buy into dex. As for the greater skill focus at first...I take it he's a human, then? How'd he reach 20 dex? 18's still amazingly not worth it barring great rolls. Also note he cannot yet claim the synergy bonus from jump until level 2. Just being nitpicky. And why is tumbling around Asmodeous broken? What good does that do? A level 1 mage can automatically hit Asmodeous for d4 +1 damage. Does that realy matter? He's still dead meat if he confronts Asmodeous.

So, your justification for the auto-tumble is because they are going to get their butt kicked anyway? That's stupid! That's like saying I should have super speed so once I get into a car accident and break my back, I won't have to spend as much time walking! You don't give someone a special ability (and an auto-success at a skill is pretty much that) just because of a perceived deficiency.

No, it's an important point. Tumbling in and of itself doesn't harm the other person. It can't actually DO anything. You could take skill tricks and feats (like acrobatic backstab), which typically require many ranks, pre-req feats, and higher level, to gain some kind of combat advantage from tumbling. But tumbling alone does not do anything. It saves your life if you get in melee with a much stronger foe, and helps you get into flanking position if you rely on sneak attack to stand any chance at all in melee. A rogue getting SA every round is still generally at a disadvantage against an equally twinked Fighter in melee.

Also, I think you're in the minority thinking that rogues and monks are punks (rhyme unintended). I've seen fellow players craft some wicked rogues and some brutal monks far more than I've seen those classes get abused just because of their class.

Oh, they can dish out some great damage. I think a good Fighter, Barbarian, or Ranger could still do cmparable, but putting that aside. Have you ever seen monks and rogues that weren't at least a bit more "squishy" than the more melee focused counterparts? I've made many strong monk and rogue build,s they're two of my favorite classes. Yet to have a single one I'd feel comfortable leaving in the thick of combat for too long. A monk especially can end up with a very high AC and defenses to avoid getting harmed. But once that outer eggshell is cracked, the inside's all gooey.

As I mentioned, I used the ninja thing as an analogy to your point. You were stating that only a tumbler should be able to stop a tumbler. I compared it to that cheesy line from old martial arts movies "only a ninja can stop a ninja", which is about as cheesy as your point that only a skilled tumbler can stop someone else from tumbling.

See above about other self-defeating skills. Ninjas never crossed my mind when I made my tumble houserules. Well, as far as I could detect. Which means they probably did cross my mind.

And how exactly is the CR guy going to use an AoO to counter the tumble attempt? What AoO is he going to use because tumbling doesn't draw an AoO and for the CR guy to use an AoO attempt, the tumble check has to be made and failed, which won't happen after 2nd or 3rd level as has already been established.

How is the CR getting 'back' an AoO? If the tumble is successful, the movement doesn't draw an AoO, so where is the CR guy getting his AoO from? And how does he 'expend' an AoO. There is no AoO to expend. The tumbler doesn't provoke one unless his check fails. They aren't something that gets saved up. An AoO is provoked and the attack is either made on the spot or not.

Here's how it works:
#1: Tumbler moves through threatened/occupied area(s). This action would normally provoke an AoO.
#2: As part of his movement, the Tumbler tumbles to avoid provoking an AoO for his movement. So, he makes a tumble check against DC 15 or 25. If successful, no AoO is provoked. If he fails, AoO is provoked, but by then, the tumble has already been completed as the character has suffered the consequences of his tumble attempt.

What you're trying to say is either:
#1: The tumbler provokes an AoO for attempting a tumble skill check instead of his movement provoking the AoO or...
#2: The CR guy gets to make an AoO for the tumbler moving whether or not the tumbler successfully makes his tumble check and if the CR guy hits, then he gets another AoO for the movement that normally would have provoked an AoO.

When I say expend an AoO usage, it's not quite the same as taking an AoO or one is being provoked. In the non core splatbooks, especially Tome of Battle, there are feats and maneuvers to use your AoOs for the round as an expendable resource to do other things with them. Shifting Defense, a level 5 Setting Sun stance, lets you when someone attacks and misses you, expend an AoO for the round to 5 ft step. It is not declaring that misses on you are a new form of provoking an AoO. It is simply giving you a new use for them, under specific conditions, with a specific benefit. That was the same vein my CR houserule was based on. The person tries to tumble out of your threatened square to avoid AoO's, you expend one of your AoO's to try and foil his tumbling and leave him vulnerable to attacks (in effect, his check result is replacing the DC, though I don't like to phrase it like that, since the tumbler still has to beat the regular DC and on a tie, the highest modifier would win). That's it.

Why shouldn't a fighter be more difficult to tumble past than a farmer? Really? You don't see why? You're pulling my leg! I refuse to believe you or anyone not retarded would be unable to understand why a fighter trying to kill you would be harder to flip past than a farmer.

Other than that the Fighter is more likely to be armed and thus actually threatening the area around himself, and has a much higher chance of actually hitting if he does get to take his AoO (and deal far more damage on said AoO...AND likely have feats to do nasty things like trip you with that AoO)...no, not really. You already said "Its not about combat ability, its about the target's ability to interfere with the tumble. The AoO that may follow is about combat ability." So, if it's not combat ability, and it's some sort of skill, as you say...if neither the high level Fighter nor the simple farmer has any training at all in this skill, whatever it may be, then why should the fighter be better at it? Like I said, it'd be liek if said farmer and fighter had the same strength and no climb ranks. Does being higher level and in a more martial (and better) class give the Fighter some kind of advantage? No.

Being an experienced warrior (or any other class) means that you are used to controlling or at least affecting the area around you (hence the 'experience').

Then why, taking possible feats out of the equation, is a level 1 Fighter with a reach weapon (and armor spikes, if you want to get nitpicky) better at controlling the area around him than a level 20 Fighter with a long sword? the experience alone doesn't matter. The level 20 Fighter could have taken the right feats, or perhaps this skill to counter tumble we're talking about, to be better at it. But being high level on its own does nothing for him this regard.

What about combat reflexes makes you think they should 'control' the area around them enough to make AoOs where they are not provoked. All the feat does is let you make more than 1 AoO per round. If you're going to extrapolate the ability to make AoO basically at will, I'd almost be interested to see what modifications you have with other feats.

It also lets you take your AoOs when flatfooted and against invisible foes, so it also gives some bit or preternatural sense of your surroundings. And having the control and skill to make multiple attacks when opponents leave themselves open in the short span of 6 seconds IS a form of bettering your ability ot control your immediate area, in my book. So of all the core feats, it seemed like the best one to use for my houserule.

Why are you focusing on fighters? A frickin 20th level wizard wouldn't be easy to tumble past. A DC 15 to move past someone like that. No way.

Even if the 20th level wizard isn't even threatening the area around himself? Either becauseh eh as a xbow in hand or just finds melee combat beneath him?

You're not talking about doing superhuman things after a while, you're wanting to do it right off the bat!

No, without investing most/all of your feats and spending a ludrious point buy sum on dex that generally only casters are willing to spend on their casting stat, you don't start becoming super-human until around level 5-6 or higher, the generally accepted breakpoint between gritty realism and heroic fantasy.

You need to take a closer look at the skill. If you make a skill check, you performed the technique needed to succeed at your skill. Your technique can be flawless, but that doesn't mean its going to work against someone capable of and able to kill you or knock you down in a single hit. The tumble DC as written allows for no variation, no exception, no allowance for difficulty or challenge and that is what is broken about that aspect of the tumble skill.

If they can kill or knock me down in one hit, they can just track me down and do that to me on their turn anyway. How about this question: Should the Withdraw action always automatically succeed? Shouldn't the enemy's martial skill (or whatever you think matters) make it easier or harder when used to escape from different enemies?

Every other skill check acting against another character (except for Diplomacy) is an opposed check. And don't even start on diplomacy, there are plenty of threads out there about how broken that is. If a skill is acting on someone else, it should be an opposed roll, or there should be modifiers to the DC to account for who you are acting against.

Concentraton is also a fixed DC that has nothing to do with the threat level of the particular enemy... Don't get started on that one, either, I take it?
I think the design assumption with both of those skills is that you're not using them "against" a foe. The DC merely represents how hard it is to perform that action. For spells, the difficulty from whateer the base DC is is modified by spell level. Higher level spells are harder to concentrate on. For tumble, the terrain you're rolling/somersaulting on can make it more difficult, as can doing a prolonged tumbling routine past several different creatures.

If you want 100% success, then don't bother with tumble and just get Spring Attack. On the other hand, if the pathetic 15/25 DC is modified by the person you're attempting to tumble past, so what? That's a reason to build up tumble, to be better than others. Otherwise, there's not really any point in working up tumble past level 5 or so.

So what about the mage doing that? That's not acting on or against the person he's trying to get around. The rogue (and anyone else) can get to a point where they can reliably get past someone. Its called the Spring Attack feat. If you don't want the rogue to have that, then the rogue should have to build up his tumble skill to account for more dangerous and difficult beings to tumble past, not just dump enough points into it so that by 5th or 6th level, at his laziest, he doesn't even need to roll anymore.

Why if you don't like tumble automatically working, do you promote Spring Attack? Tumble at least has circumstance modifers to make it harder, and as a skill can be subject to penalties (from fear, debuff spells and abilities, etc...). Spring Attack, on the other hand, works as long as you cna move. No exceptions. And it can be had by a Human Rogue at level 3, about the same time as auto-DC 15 tumbling, if he's similarly bombing all his feats on tumble.

EDIT: Spring Attack requires BAB +4, otherwise it could be taken by level 3.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I use: the Tumble check replaces the Dex portion of AC. And give bonuses for the Mobility feat as others have mentioned. I also use the modifiers for terrain and mulitple foes as listed in skill description but apply them to the skill check: positive adders to the DC become negative adders to the skill check. It's possible for the this total to become a negative to the AC.

The character still gets bonuses to their AC from armour, rings of protection and what not. It means that the character is generally a lot harder to hit when tumbling. But if they start trying to tumble past lines of foes on difficult terrain they may find themselves becoming EASIER to hit. So the swashbuckly types have to use the skill in a considered manner but they don't suffer much for it.

I like the idea that smaller opponents get a size bonus but might halve the bonus to +2 per category.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I've seen 6+ ft tall, at least 250 lb (mostly muscle) mestres do graceful somersaults and headslides...so yeah, even when larger, it doesn't necessarily mean the big guy can't get past the smaller guy with agility. I'd rather argue game mechanics, but if you want to talk about real life, I've actually witnessed much larger people "tumble" around or over smaller ones.

Thread necromancy, lesser!

Ok, maybe he wasn't quite as big as I recalled, I'm not sure anymore. But I did recently recall the specific capoerista's name that I was describing (I've seen several agile large people, but he was just amazing), Mestrando Jamaika from a Salt Lake City group, CapuraGinga. I found some good youtube videos of him, watch if you'd like. I just like having a reason to post cool capoeira videos.

[sblock]He's the one in blue pants in this video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jt-83A3KiA&feature=fvw]YouTube - Friday Night Roda: Mestrando Jamaika style[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkek0b_ahOc]YouTube - Mestrando Jamaika[/ame]
The action doesn't start till 0:54 in this one, but it's a nice game, and the other mestre actually makes one heck of a DC 25 tumble check at 1:12!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvbcb7H3bwk&feature=related]YouTube - Capoeira: Mestre Demétrius & Mestrando Jamaika[/ame]
[/sblock]

 

[jasin]

If you want 100% success, then don't bother with tumble and just get Spring Attack. On the other hand, if the pathetic 15/25 DC is modified by the person you're attempting to tumble past, so what? That's a reason to build up tumble, to be better than others. Otherwise, there's not really any point in working up tumble past level 5 or so.

Tumbling through something at full speed (half normal human speed won't take you far enough to go through a Huge, 15 ft. monster) on a natural cavern floor (a not uncommon environment in D&D) is an effective DC 40 check.

You'll have to invest in tumble quite a bit past 5th level if you want to be able to do that.

 

[jasin]

BTW, a tangential question I think is relevant: why must tumbling difficulty be dependent on the defender's skill (whether their own tumble skill, or BAB, or level), but not concentration difficulty?

I cannot remember ever seeing this line of reasoning applied to concentration, despite the two skills working very similarly.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, in my last big post at the end, I mentioned concentration in passing as being similar. Most people that have a problem with one also have a problem with the other, and tend to hate low static DCs in general, IME. While as I prefer that unlike in 4E, DC of a skill interacting with the environment will always be an appropriate DC x, regardless of level, instead of the PC's level being taken into account in determining the DC / what he's interacting with. I also like being able to "stop" with a skill after a while if you want, and move onto some other ones, without falling irrevocably behind.

Far as concentration goes...in my current game the PCs are level 10 gestalt with 34 point buy...NOT underpowered. If it weren't for allowing tunics of steady spellcasting, they would still fail to cast defensively about 25% of the time, I'd estimate. Certainly at least 10-15%. But, I allowed those items, because I don't mind the mages being able to cast in melee freely by that level. If they do so, they tend to get whalloped in response, which has on its own been enough to curb "abuse."