Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 4818515" data-attributes="member: 35909">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?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.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?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.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.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.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!"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.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 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.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 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification