How to stop Tumblers?

[Nail]

IAnd at least in our games, opposed rolls are sometimes (but not always) faster to discern the result.

Hmmmm...that's not quite what I mean.

More rolls (even ones that are individually fast) means slower game.

For Tumble, this becomes an issue at higher levels. At such levels, the Tumble check versus a set DC is automatic....which just happens to coinside with the levels at which PC are normally making lots of other rolls per turn. Requiring Tumble opposed checks at that level would add "Yet Another Roll", which slows games down.

There's no getting around that, BTW. A roll takes time, 2 rolls takes twice as long, etc.

Since Tumble works fine as is, and works consistently within the rules set, and has excellent fluff text to support it, and speeds the game up in the process.......

Might as well keep it.

 

[Slaved]

I'll present a scenario on movement in threatened area.

Given the rest of the thread plus what tumble represents I do not see that scenario as bad or wrong. You are literally saying in the second half that a guy with no skill at something cannot do it, excellent. In the first half there would be an issue of how far one gets to move.

Aoo's are doing something which lets your opponent(s) do something bad to you. Tumble takes one of those situations and lets you not do that something.

Tumble does not represent fighting prowess or quick wits or a simulation of your reach or your ability to be physically imposing or anything along those lines. Although your choice of scenarios implies that you feel it should be otherwise.

 

[Someone]

Really, if you think about it, it's no fair that you can 5-ft step away from a 1st level commoner just as easily as from a 20th level Fighter......

You think that's bad? Try then not to imagine to step 5 feet away from a warblade

 

[Legildur]

Given the rest of the thread plus what tumble represents I do not see that scenario as bad or wrong. You are literally saying in the second half that a guy with no skill at something cannot do it, excellent. In the first half there would be an issue of how far one gets to move.

No, what I am saying is that the veteran hero is less able to defend himself against a threat than a junior rogue for moving a mere 10ft. I see the point you are trying to make, but I do not think that a rogue should be able to circumvent an AOO so easily or reliably against such a powerful opponent. Which why I, and many others, support the implementation of opposed checks of some description (a line which WotC supports to some degree through the availability of published optional rules).

 

[Slaved]

No, what I am saying is that the veteran hero is less able to defend himself against a threat than a junior rogue for moving a mere 10ft.

I see it as a guy with no skill at all in a certain area is being beaten by a person with a 'lot' of skill in that area.

And I have no problem with that.

The fighter could stomp the rogue in BAB and hp, certainly. The rogue can trounce the fighters ability to search for traps, from level 1, even against a 20th level fighter.

It is just a different skill set.

Most of the implementations suggested in this thread wind up being a freebee or a punishment, depending.

If you make it an opposed check, which I oppose anyway but that is neither here nor there, then what do you base the opposition off of? Base attack bonus? That would mean that primary base attack bonus guys would be able to oppose fairly easily for free while the secondary combatants, such as monks and rogues, will generally have a much lesser chance. Even though I would think that of anyone monks and rogues would be the ones able to stop a guy from using their own tricks. Base it on another skill? Fighters are still hosed, as are most classes. The tumble skill is then based on some lower number and it becomes even easier or someone actually puts points into it and the skill is impossible to use. It is entirely possible to not have any idea of what your chances are at succeeding at the skill, which seems rather strange. Statistic check has a similar issue.


Leaving it as is makes for a fairly easy going skill use. You know about how tough it will be and whether or not to risk it. It does have downsides and it does take investment. Overall it has the right feel and it has about the right level of difficulty at various levels in my view. Tumbling past one guy? Fairly easy. Tumble past several? Very tough until you are very skilled.

Making it opposed creates a new dimension to it that is a bit distastful to me. No matter what you pick to oppose the skill it just won't feel right.

I would rather just houserule the couple of fairly minor instances of oddness rather than change the whole system to something that is basically anti movement based characters.

In most of the circumstances that I see people coming up with here tumbling gets you somewhere without someone being able to make an aoo. Often though this would put the character into a very bad position, such as being surrounded by opponents. This is both tactically advantageous and disadvantageous. If the action is tough and the result is both good and bad I have a hard time seeing a reason to make it so much more complicated.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hmmmm...that's not quite what I mean.

More rolls (even ones that are individually fast) means slower game.

For Tumble, this becomes an issue at higher levels. At such levels, the Tumble check versus a set DC is automatic....which just happens to coinside with the levels at which PC are normally making lots of other rolls per turn. Requiring Tumble opposed checks at that level would add "Yet Another Roll", which slows games down.

There's no getting around that, BTW. A roll takes time, 2 rolls takes twice as long, etc.

Since Tumble works fine as is, and works consistently within the rules set, and has excellent fluff text to support it, and speeds the game up in the process.......

Might as well keep it.

How many games are played at higher levels (i.e. above 10th)? 1/3rd? 1/4th?

For Tumble Through and for Casting Defensive, it does not become automatic until maybe about 12th level and 8th level respectively or so (class and character focus depending). For games below these levels, the opposed roll will sometimes be faster than the set DC for these capabilities.

For Tumble Past, this probably occurs around 5th level or so.


But your point here, although valid from a time perspective, assumes one wants a game with virtually no AoOs at higher levels.

Personally, I like AoOs. It forces tactical decisions. I think the significant decrease of them in high level games sucks.

I also think that people complain that High Level Fighter types suck and giving them more opportunities at higher levels for AoOs (and Trips, etc. out of AoOs) is a good thing for the game.

Having the high level Fighter trip the tumbling rogue sometimes is a good thing. Having the high level Fighter disrupt the spell caster sometimes is a good thing.

Virtually never is a bad thing. No wonder people complain that high level Fighters suck.

 

[Jhulae]

I honestly don't see a problem with it, especially since it's mostly going to be characters with low HP (rogues and such) who are avoiding AoOs to get in just one attack.

If I take tumble with a non-roguely type, it's usually only to get the bonus to full defense and defensive attack that 5 ranks in tumble provides, not to avoid AoOs.

 

[phindar]

I think opposed skill rolls can slow it up a bit, but no more than opposed Strength checks for Trip, Overrun, etc.

I think this is an interesting point, because in my opinion most of the combat manuevers are more complex than they need to be. One of my favorite patches to D&D combat was to vastly simplify the way these manuevers were resolved. It was a quick and dirty fix, but it allowed me to add in only the complexity I wanted, that I thought added to the game. Opposed rolls for Tumble and Concentration, more detailed crit and fumble charts, alternative skill uses that allowed for more interpretation in play. (The rule changes fit on one page-- grappling, AoO's, combat manuevers and stunts-- and were simple enough that even though I forgot to bring it to the test session I was running, I was able to run it from memory.)

More rolls (even ones that are individually fast) means slower game.

This is a very good point in that respect, because no matter how good a rule is, if it slows down play its probably not worth it. Every system balances between simple rules that are fast but lack detail, and complex rules that are slower but are more detailed. At either end of the spectrum, play breaks down. Every group has to find their own happy medium.

 

[Nail]

But your point here, although valid from a time perspective, assumes one wants a game with virtually no AoOs at higher levels.

Personally, I like AoOs. It forces tactical decisions. I think the significant decrease of them in high level games sucks.

This must be one of those "YMMV" situations. In our high level game, AoOs were a big deal, a people were very careful to avoid them. And we played with Tumble as a set DC (and therefore automatic for the Rogue and the multiclass Ftr).

It was quite tactical, and fun.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by KarinsDad
But your point here, although valid from a time perspective, assumes one wants a game with virtually no AoOs at higher levels.

Personally, I like AoOs. It forces tactical decisions. I think the significant decrease of them in high level games sucks.

This also ignores the fact that tumbling doesn't negate all AOO's. It only negates the AOO for moving. Sure, it helps the rogues, but, then again, they need all the help they can get. The mage? Who cares? If he's within melee range at the end of his turn, he dies anyway.