Houseruling tumbling

[HandofMystra]

Last night my DM got tired of my monk's autotumbling and declared that he was going to houerule something about it. The two ideas I heard were 1) make a tumble check for leaving each threatened square (normal: make a tumble check once for each opponent that would normally get an AoO) or 2) make tumble an opposed check (maybe DEX+BAB vs tumble).

Have people tried alternative tumble rules?

What do y'all think of either of the variants?

I was thinking that if we used variant 1) it would violate the AoO rule of any creature gets at most one AoO per round per target

 

[The Levitator]

Are you following the rules with tumbling right now? I've seen a lot of people complain about a lot of "broken" things, and tumbling rarely makes that list. If he's "tired" of you using a skill that you put a lot into being good at, maybe the problem isn't your "overuse" of the skill. It sounds like it might be the DM's inability or lack of desire to put your character into situations that make tumbling more difficult. He could put you in difficult terrain, tight spaces that wouldn't allow tumbling, and a host of other things that would at least make it more difficult for you to succeed at tumbling.

I know that 3.5 isn't perfect, and there's nothing wrong with a group making changes for the good of the whole group. But I have to wonder about a DM who is changing something just because you are successful at it a lot. Isn't that the point of D&D, for the characters to be heroes and succeed at their tasks? In our last campaign, I had a halfling druidic/monk in my group. He became really good at both tumbling and his Low Blow feat. So good, in fact, that they became his signature combat moves. Rather than punish him for putting a lot of work into getting good at a particular skill, I just created some environments that made it more challenging. And I didn't go out of my way to make every encounter anti-tumbling, really probably more like 1 in 5. I just don't think players should be punished for putting a lot of focus into 1 particular skill. Besides, if you are putting a lot of focus into 1 skill, there has to be some other weakness in your character that he could challenge you with, rather than nerf a skill just because you are good at it.

If your DM is fairly new to D&D, just talk to him and tell him you'd rather he added some difficulty to the environments or challenged your characters weaknesses rather than nerf a skill you really like to use and have gotten to be pretty skilled with. From your brief description, it sounds like the DM considers it to be a bit of a DM v.s. Player kind of game. That's not a good environment for everyone to have fun. I always wonder how DM's can get "tired" of their players having a great time and being successful. Isn't that the point of the game?

 

[Sir Brennen]

Have people tried alternative tumble rules?

What do y'all think of either of the variants?

Check out these (fairly) recent threads on the subject for several ideas and opinions on mechanics similar to your suggestions:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=175991

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=178980

 

[Pbartender]

From Iron Heroes...

Dodge Foes: You can tumble at half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Check separately for each opponent you move past in the order in which you pass them, with your choice of order in case of a tie. Your foes oppose your Tumble checks with their base attack checks. Each additional enemy after the first in a single round adds +2 to his base attack check.

 

[Aaron L]

Last night my DM got tired of my monk's autotumbling and declared that he was going to houerule something about it. The two ideas I heard were 1) make a tumble check for leaving each threatened square (normal: make a tumble check once for each opponent that would normally get an AoO) or 2) make tumble an opposed check (maybe DEX+BAB vs tumble).

Have people tried alternative tumble rules?

What do y'all think of either of the variants?

I was thinking that if we used variant 1) it would violate the AoO rule of any creature gets at most one AoO per round per target

What, exactly, caused him to get tired of it? That you were always able to avoid AoOs? That seems a bit silly that he would get upset because you succeed at something you have set out to be good at. Does he also get upset that your Monk is successful at doing damage without weapons, or that he moves faster than everyone else?

 

[el-remmen]

From the Aquerra wiki:

Tumble (Dex)
The mechanics for tumbling make tumbling through threatened areas and through occupied squares slightly more difficult in Aquerra.

Through a Threatened Area: In order to tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so through a threatened area make a Tumble check. Opponents are allowed a base attack check modified by Dexterity against the Tumble check result to be allowed an attack of opportunity as normal. Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie). Each additional enemy after the first applies a -2 penalty to your Tumble check.

Through an Occupied Square: As above, except the opponent gains +4 to his BAB check and your Tumble check must be at least 15 to succeed. A successful check by an opponent means you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy. Check separately for each opponent. Each additional enemy after the first applies a -2 penalty to your Tumble check.

 

[StGabe]

What, exactly, caused him to get tired of it? That you were always able to avoid AoOs? That seems a bit silly that he would get upset because you succeed at something you have set out to be good at. Does he also get upset that your Monk is successful at doing damage without weapons, or that he moves faster than everyone else?

I think the issue is that the opponent has no involvement and it quickly becomes to trivial to ignore AoO's (especially for a Monk that has plenty of movement to spare).

I like the opposed check against the enemies attack roll. Basically if you are a great tumbler then you should have a very good chance of avoiding attacks (getting bonuses to Tumble is easier than getting bonuses to attack), however it will be harder against very skilled opponents who will be able to see through your tumbling routine and still stick you. Basically I see tumbling as a bit of a feint, you run through an enemy's zone but you do so with a flip or a roll making it harder for him to read where you will be as you pass.

If you still think this is too harsh on the person with tumbling skills then given then an additional bonus to their roll (no more than +4).

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Personally I like the simple approach:

When tumbling past an opponent, use your Tumble result as your AC if it is higher than your normal AC.
- Your result is reduced by 2 points for each additional enemy you tumble past
- Mobility adds +4 to your results
- Tumbling through an opponents space grants the opponent a +10 to hit, a successful AoO stops you from tumbling through.

In this manner the opponent still has the opportunity to make an attack, but as StGabe noted bonuses to Tumble are easier to get than bonuses to attack...
It also means only one roll.
IMC the bad guys would waste some AoOs on the monk until they realized it was pointless....