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="Hawken" data-source="post: 4818385" data-attributes="member: 23619">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!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.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 was my original intention, just forgot to mention it.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.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. 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.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 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!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.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. 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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification