Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Poll] Tumbling?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="comrade raoul" data-source="post: 1090166" data-attributes="member: 554"><p>I think the "DC 15" (or 3.0 D&D) version makes tumbling too strong, and the "opposed attack roll" (or Monte Cook) version isn't appealing in that it, in effect, makes Tumble just another form of AC that applies to attacks of opportunity and has almost nothing to do with your action AC. It's also true that it's often the case that opponent's attack bonuses will outstrip tumbling bonuses, which might make tumbling too weak.</p><p></p><p>Instead, I go for a happy medium. My system is motivated on the following underlying assumption: tumbling through a threatened area should make you better at avoiding attacks of opportunity that your movement provokes. To me, "better at avoiding attacks" is most simply and effectively represented with AC bonuses. Since my system can provide very large bonuses to AC, tumbling continues to be useful, but you need to be <em>very</em> good at tumbling if you want to avoid attacks of opportunity from foes who would normally hit you most of the time (which, I think, is the way it should be). It also retains the value of the Mobility feat for tumbling characters, which I think is a good thing to do. But without further ado:</p><p></p><p>a. When tumbling through a threatened area, you get a circumstance modifier to your AC versus any attacks of opportunity provoked by your movement equal to (half your skill check) - 5. (Tumbling really ineptly actually makes you easier to hit, as you're paying less attention to dodging). Thus, a skill check result of 19 gives me a +4 AC versus attacks of opportunity.</p><p></p><p>b. Tumbling through an occupied space works the same way, but the circumstance modifier to AC becomes (half your skill check) - 8. Thus, a skill check result of 19 gives me a +1 AC bonus in this case. Characters always threaten the space they occupy, even if they don't threaten adjacent spaces (if they're wielding a reach weapon or a ranged weapon). If you don't threaten an adjacent space with your weapon, you make your attack of opportunity with an unarmed strike or other natural weapon. If the attack of opportunity hits, my move action ends immediately, in the square I can through just before I tried to tumble through the occupied space.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="comrade raoul, post: 1090166, member: 554"] I think the "DC 15" (or 3.0 D&D) version makes tumbling too strong, and the "opposed attack roll" (or Monte Cook) version isn't appealing in that it, in effect, makes Tumble just another form of AC that applies to attacks of opportunity and has almost nothing to do with your action AC. It's also true that it's often the case that opponent's attack bonuses will outstrip tumbling bonuses, which might make tumbling too weak. Instead, I go for a happy medium. My system is motivated on the following underlying assumption: tumbling through a threatened area should make you better at avoiding attacks of opportunity that your movement provokes. To me, "better at avoiding attacks" is most simply and effectively represented with AC bonuses. Since my system can provide very large bonuses to AC, tumbling continues to be useful, but you need to be [i]very[/i] good at tumbling if you want to avoid attacks of opportunity from foes who would normally hit you most of the time (which, I think, is the way it should be). It also retains the value of the Mobility feat for tumbling characters, which I think is a good thing to do. But without further ado: a. When tumbling through a threatened area, you get a circumstance modifier to your AC versus any attacks of opportunity provoked by your movement equal to (half your skill check) - 5. (Tumbling really ineptly actually makes you easier to hit, as you're paying less attention to dodging). Thus, a skill check result of 19 gives me a +4 AC versus attacks of opportunity. b. Tumbling through an occupied space works the same way, but the circumstance modifier to AC becomes (half your skill check) - 8. Thus, a skill check result of 19 gives me a +1 AC bonus in this case. Characters always threaten the space they occupy, even if they don't threaten adjacent spaces (if they're wielding a reach weapon or a ranged weapon). If you don't threaten an adjacent space with your weapon, you make your attack of opportunity with an unarmed strike or other natural weapon. If the attack of opportunity hits, my move action ends immediately, in the square I can through just before I tried to tumble through the occupied space. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Poll] Tumbling?
Top