SRD:
Tumble DC:25
Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke an attack of opportunity from that enemy. Check separately for each opponent. Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.
See, this is the root of my problem. I can't picture how someone moves through a threatened area SLOWER than normal (half speed is at a walk) and gets the benefit of not provoking AoO's where as a normal fighter, dodging, movie, feinting, DOES is subject to AoO's in the same space.
What is it the Tumbler is doing that the fighter isn't?
It can't be what some of you are describing--just dodging in and out, weaving around. Because that's basically what a fighter does when he's in melee.
The only thing that seems to make sense here is to picture Prince of Persia style moves--which is superhuman and unacceptible to me in my game.
One of the problem with a highly simulationist game using D&D is that the system was never meant to be used as such.
Only people ignorant of the d20 system's flexibility says that. All one has to do is look around and see how the game has been modified to fit various styles of game, from gritty ultra modern, to super hero fantastical.
The d20 system is just as capable of handling a simulationist approach as it is an abstract approach.
For example, look at the spell component rules. Now look at how spell component management is handled (hint: read the item description of the spell component pouch). I'll wait.
I don't play D&D. I play another d20 game, Conan. It has a totally different, non-vancian, sorcery system.
And, the Conan RPG is a bit more simulationist than regular 3.0/3.5 D&D, although it can be played either way (see...flexibility).
WB, I noticed you used the Hide skill a couple of times as an example of making sure the setting is more important than rolling high, and being an avid rogue-type player, I feel the need to back up what Dandu said about the rules supporting and governing hiding behind things.
I'm sure that's true about Hide. I was making a point, that I think you got, about the style of my game, not about the Hide skill.
I usually speak in examples. That's just what came to my head. I'm sure it's a bad example, as you've shown, but I think my point was still made.
I grock Conan. I grock him a lot, actually.
Yes, Conan is cool. The Hyborian Age facinates me.
It's almost a juxtaposition of "heroic" -and- "grim'n'gritty." It's pulp, actually.
It's....it's....Swords & Sorcery!
I guess what I'm driving at, WB, is where exactly do you draw the line? Is it ok for someone to scale the sheer battlements of a mountain fortress with their bare hands, finding the nooks and crannies only a mountain-born Cimmerian could find? Is it then not ok for that same Cimmerian to duck under a wicked slash of an enemy's blade and tumble backwards, coming up with his sword in hand?
I'm OK with both of those things you just mentioned.
Where do I draw the line? Where "heroic" crossover over the line of my own suspension of disbelief into "superhuman".
As with most things in a campaign, that "line" is governed by the GM's sensibilities.
Honestly just curous - I only have beefs with GMs when they change what my character can do simply "because that doesn't make sense to me."
In my game, you've have all the opportunity you need to convince me that something does make sense. I listen to my players, and I want them to be happy. In the end, though, I am the final word. I'm the Rulebook. It doesn't matter what's printed in some book somewhere. I'm Judge Dread when it comes to decisons about the game.
What makes logical sense can be VERY subjective, as I think this thread has illustrated nicely.
I disagree with the statement that this thread has illustrated nicely what it is to tumble. See the top of this post.
NOT leveling that claim at you, mind you, but this whole discussion sort of reminds me of the time a foe closed in with one of our bow-wielding party members, and her only recourse was to try and stab the attacker with an arrow. The rules supported it (3.5) but they were told "the arrow would break, sorry you're not Legolas." Boy did that irk me something fierce.
I would have rewarded that--very "cool", cinematic play. It would have been a shining moment in my game.
You have to remember, though. It is IMPOSSBILE to agree with your GM 100% of the time unless YOU ARE THE GM.
People are people. Aspects of the game are subjects. Difference of opinion WILL happen.
You elected to play with your GM. Now stand by that decision whether you agree with one or two of his calls, or not.
Because you're always going to disagree with something he does.