How to stop Tumblers?

[pallandrome]

While I know this isn't really part and partial to the tumbling conversation, I thought it was standard operating procedure for heads of state to wear fortified armor (even if it's just a fortified tunic) all the damn time, just for this reason.

 

[Nail]

Had a house rule about Tumble years ago.

Me too. Then I grew out of it. Since then I've stuck more closely to the system as it's presented.

Given how often the "tumble past the guards" situation crops up (very rarely), and how often said rogue gets creamed the following round now that he's surrounded (often), this doesn't really seem like an issue.

Besides, in D&D the King had better by a high-level mucky-muck. If he's not, it's cause there's another power behind the throne pulling the strings.

Heck, even if he is high level, he's probably still screwed. D&D doesn't model Feudalism well.

 

[Nail]

It's a wart on the system. An exception to the "I am trying to do something which you should have a chance to oppose" game mechanics.

I disagree.

There are several mechanics (like when you provoke AoOs!!) that have NOTHING TO DO with how skilled the opponent is. Nothing at all.

Why should the AoO system, which focuses on the person moving, have a separate sub-system for determining some AoOs based on the skill of someone else? That makes no sense. Be consistent.

 

[Nail]

In other words:

If you have opposed rolls to determine AoOs while tumbling, why not have opposed rolls for every potential AoO?

(I'll tell you why: slowing down the game ain't worth the pain-in-the-arse attempted fix!)

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree.

There are several mechanics (like when you provoke AoOs!!) that have NOTHING TO DO with how skilled the opponent is. Nothing at all.

Why should the AoO system, which focuses on the person moving, have a separate sub-system for determining some AoOs based on the skill of someone else? That makes no sense. Be consistent.

I was not discussing AoOs. I was discussing Tumble Through.

With regard to AoOs, it depends on what you mean by skilled. A skilled Fighter with a BAB of 20 is probably going to hit most AoOs.


I think Tumble Through should be an opposed roll. As a skill, it states: I am going to do an Overrun on you. I am going to force you to step aside, even though you do not want to. I am going to avoid the Overrun AoO, even though I did not take the Improved Overrun feat. I am going to get all of this capability by taking a skill. By 10th level, I can do this every time. It matters not if you are a Dragon. It matters not if you are a Blademaster. I am going to Overrun you (even though I did not take a special feat to do so) and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

That's a wart. IMO. It's a way around the Overrun rules.


To be consistent, it would be good if both normal Tumble and Tumble Through were both opposed rolls.

 

[Nail]

To be consistent, it would be good if both normal Tumble and Tumble Through were both opposed rolls.

But the point is:

Both 'tumble' and 'tumble through' affect whether or not you've let your guard down enough to be subject to an AoO. Just like provoking any other AoO, provoking does NOT depend on the skill of the other.

No relationship. None. Nada.

Why should provoking AoOs from tumble be *any* different than provoking AoOs for some other kind of movement?

 

[PallidPatience]

An Overrun knocks the opponent prone. Tumble does not. Tumble merely lets you move through an occupied square. They're not really similar at all.

I just thought I'd point that out.

 

[KarinsDad]

But the point is:

Both 'tumble' and 'tumble through' affect whether or not you've let your guard down enough to be subject to an AoO. Just like provoking any other AoO, provoking does NOT depend on the skill of the other.

No relationship. None. Nada.

Why should provoking AoOs from tumble be *any* different than provoking AoOs for some other kind of movement?

It shouldn't.

Combat casting should also be an opposed roll.

PS. The let your guard down philosophy is merely a quasi-explanation by WotC of what causes AoOs. We all know that the only reason AoOs are in the game at all is to cover some game mechanics holes in a circular initiative system and has nothing to do with "lowering your guard". They are there for game mechanics and combat flow reasons, so they can easily be modified to different game mechanics (i.e. an opposed roll) for 4E.

 

[DreadArchon]

1) DREAD archon are always such a drag.

Just pray we don't take you alive... >:-]

That's a wart. IMO. It's a way around the Overrun rules.

No, it's not. The Overrun rules assume that you're trying to force your way past the person, a Tumble Through assumes that you're trying to dodge past them. Considering that you're moving at half speed at best and get stopped short and attacked if you can't beat a DC of AT LEAST 25, sometimes repeatedly, it's not something you normally want to do unless you're damn good. Further, that half movement will usually help keep the king safe in the assassination scenario.

Of course, you can do it at full speed (which you would have to do to simulate Overrun) by adding ten to the DC. This brings the DC to 35+, which is five higher than the threshold for EPIC Tumble skills.

You are complaining that an EPIC acrobat can learn to effectively slip past someone. They're more likely to UMD a Dimension Door spell than they are to Tumble Through in the way you're describing. Get over it.

 

[KarinsDad]

An Overrun knocks the opponent prone. Tumble does not. Tumble merely lets you move through an occupied square. They're not really similar at all.

I just thought I'd point that out.

Go back and re-read Overrun.

The target of the Overrun gets to AoO the attacker.
The target of the Overrun can decide to let the attacker move through him.

Tumble Through is identical to Overrun (for moving through, not for knocking down) where the attacker decides to let the attacker move through the target as opposed to the target making that decision.

In other words, Overrun allows a defense whereas Tumble Through does not. Tumble Through is a superior form of Overrun if your goal is to move through the target (as opposed to knocking him down) because allowing the attacker to move through is taken out of the hands of the defender and put into the hands of the attacker.

The best defender in the world cannot defend against this.

And Tumble Through does not even require the Improved Overrun feat to avoid the AoO. The AoO avoidance is feat free (it just requires skill ranks).


Bottom line: All auto-successes (i.e. high enough skill) where they involve a target and have no defenses are bad rules. Against objects, against situations, sure. Against targets, not so good. Ray spells are like this as well. Even Ray spells which are similar to this (i.e. eventually get to the 95% chance to hit) still have defenses (e.g. miss chances and often spell resistance).

Tumble Through does not have a defense (except for Readied Actions which is a terrible defense). That's a bad rule. Virtually every other combat aspect in the game system has some form of defense.