the rolling fighter!

[mmu1]

no, im saying that u dont have to use skills rules to just tumble.

seriously. i teach my students to roll on the ground in 5 minutes! lets take a full day to "master" it.

is that so hard to a regular fighter to do?

Well, I happen to think your friend is right.

It makes no sense for an orc to lose his ability to attack you just because you say "I roll behind him!". That's like being eight years old and playing cops and robbers, arguing with someone about whether they managed to "shoot" you.

Also, how long it takes to learn how to roll in real life doesn't actually matter - D&D isn't real life, that's the whole point. In real life, trying silly acrobatics in a fight will get you killed, fighting alone against three or four enemies will get you killed, using a sword against a guy with a spear might very well get you killed... I hate it when people try to argue that D&D is being less forgiving about something than RL.

 

[rossik]

Well, I happen to think your friend is right.

It makes no sense for an orc to lose his ability to attack you just because you say "I roll behind him!". That's like being eight years old and playing cops and robbers, arguing with someone about whether they managed to "shoot" you.

Also, how long it takes to learn how to roll in real life doesn't actually matter - D&D isn't real life, that's the whole point. In real life, trying silly acrobatics in a fight will get you killed, fighting alone against three or four enemies will get you killed, using a sword against a guy with a spear might very well get you killed... I hate it when people try to argue that D&D is being less forgiving about something than RL.

you miss the point my, friend.

in the example, the fighter is trying to trick the orc, to get a better attack option.
the fighster's player tells to the DM before he tries.

i never say that the orc cant attack, or that he looses his ability to attack, do i?

about the "how long", is just to tell you that roll is simple, not that is usefull.

AGAIN, nobody said something about " that D&D is being less forgiving about something than RL. "

 

[Klaus]

If the Fighter has a decent Dexterity score and is wearing light armor, that is a perfectly valid way of describing why the orc missed his attack.

If the Fighter had average Dexterity and/or was wearing heavy armor, the description should reflect that.

Keep in mind that this is just a decription of the action, and you get no mechanical difference between the Fighter tumbling to avoid the blow, or blocking the blow with a shield or parrying the blow with his sword. All three are valid ways of saying "the orc misses". If the description is in line with the Fighter's abilities, a little roleplaying XP is in order.

Now, if you want to feint an attack to catch the orc off-guard, you still need to roll your untrained Bluff check against the orc's (untrained, lousy, modified by BAB) Sense Motive check. It's a mechanical prerequisite for a mechanical advantage.

 

[rossik]

klaus. i really apretiate your insight...but im no 3ed player, so i have justa litttle clue about bluff and other stuff.

the fisrt part of your post answers very well, tough