How to stop Tumblers?

[phindar]

Search: Take 20. No roll necessary. Either you fail, or you succeed.

That doesn't really work for traps, since there is a penalty for failure (you set off the trap). Besides, Taking 20 isn't really the same thing as being unable to fail. One is taking the time to do it right, the other is automatically succeeding every time you try. I see what you're saying, in that Taking 10/20 are non-roll situations, but they're still fairly limited in the situations you can use them. I don't consider that the same thing as character being unable to fail at something.

 

[Stalker0]

I used to be in the camp that thought tumble should be changed. Debated tons of house rules on the HR forum and the like.

But one day....all of that changed.

I realized that other than avoiding AOOs and the occasional 10 foot drop, that's all tumble is useful for.

Consider this, a fighter vs a rogue. If you use an opposed attack roll or BAB roll or whatever variant, you are basically saying that 1 rank in tumble is mechancially equivalent to +1 BAB....in the ONLY area that tumble if useful for...the ONLY one.

This would be the equivalent of a person with getting a PHD in physics, and me reading one physics book, and we both get the same job.

As others have said, there comes a point when you stop putting ranks in tumble. Is that really so bad? The rogue has a lot of skill points, but he's got to be sneaky, and perceptive, and a good trap disabiler, etc etc. Isn't it good enough to say that the guy who goes toe to toe with beefy monsters with his d6 hit die has the ability to at least get close to them without becoming a pancake?

 

[Slaved]

That doesn't really work for traps, since there is a penalty for failure (you set off the trap).

Searching for a trap does not set off the trap in general. If it does it is more of a hazard than a trap as the simple act of searching would set it off regardless of the roll.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Yeah, but Dread Archons are cooler.


It's the actual use that makes it go too far. It would often not stop at a mere 4-6 times per turn. For example, in my last game, the Dwarf Rogue (with Tumble) got attacked by two Carcass Eaters from Libris Mortis. The combat took four rounds (the PC's kept missing), during which the Dwarf took 6 attacks per round. And this is a below-EL combat for a level 3 party, it can get worse fast at higher levels, especially considering that one can no longer just roll the attacks and hand out damage due to having to stop and wait for the PC.

I guess you could do it the Neverwinter Nights way and give permanent +1 Dodge AC for every 5 (10?) ranks in Tumble.

1) DREAD archon are always such a drag.
2) I was thinking that 4-6 times a fight was too much, but 4-6 a day was to little. On the other hand, /a day works far better.
3) I like the idea from NWN, but instead make it max per level for ranks. I need to flesh the idea out more, but effectively each level you max out the rank in tumble then you gain a +1 up to a max of +20. The requirement of which is it has to the max for the level. So if you are 4th level then 4 ranks will not get you the bonus. I still like tumble out of the way /dex a day.

---Rusty

 

[was]

scatter a lot of caltrops around you........

 

[KarinsDad]

Search: Take 20. No roll necessary. Either you fail, or you succeed.

Had a house rule about that years ago.

Had a house rule about Tumble years ago.


My issue with Tumble is not avoiding the AoOs, it's with moving through an opponent's square and he is unable to do anything about it. The most capable (core rules) swordsman in the world is not able to cover the doorway and protect the King.

Tumble is not a spell. It is not a feat. It should not have the power to blow through a Dragon's square with the Dragon (or the super trained sword master) not being able to flatten the Rogue like a pancake. JMO.

"I am the greatest swordsman in the world, except when a Rogue tumbles over me."

WT???

 

[hong]

Had a house rule about that years ago.

Had a house rule about Tumble years ago.


My issue with Tumble is not avoiding the AoOs, it's with moving through an opponent's square and he is unable to do anything about it. The most capable (core rules) swordsman in the world is not able to cover the doorway and protect the King.

For a multitude of reasons, D&D doesn't really handle the "mundane target surrounded by powerful bodyguards" setup well. Tumbling through the guards is part of it, but that's hardly the biggest problem in this scenario. The attacker could just stay where he is and shoot the king; if he can handle a DC 25 Tumble check, he can probably handle the -4 penalty for shooting through cover. Or just use fireball....

Personally I'd use the "moderate bodyguards surrounding the powerful BBEG" setup. Even if the rogue tumbles through the guards, that just opens him up to being minced.

 

[Papewaio of The Org]

Stop serving whiskey...

 

[Moon-Lancer]

My issue with Tumble is not avoiding the AoOs, it's with moving through an opponent's square and he is unable to do anything about it. The most capable (core rules) swordsman in the world is not able to cover the doorway and protect the King.
WT???

silly question, but couldn’t the guards have readied action to attack one that makes a hasty move towards the king?

 

[KarinsDad]

silly question, but couldn’t the guards have readied action to attack one that makes a hasty move towards the king?

Yes, silly question. Read my sig (in the post you responded to).