Tumble problems

Dandu · May 13, 2011

The arrow breaking is one of the points of stabbing someone with it. What would the fun be in an easily removable foreign body that punctures someone's lung?

Water Bob · May 13, 2011

Jimlock said:
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.

Dandu said:
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).

WHW4 said:
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.

Dandu · May 13, 2011

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.

Yes, but I'm not talking about the d20 system, but about a specific game using the D20 system which I assumed you were using when you talked about Tumble instead of Conan.

Water Bob · May 13, 2011

Jimlock said:
Me, personally, i tend to employ tumble for many a situation, not just avoiding AoOs. ...when a character wants to swing from a chandelier so as to kick someone in the face... when a character wants to roll in-between the feet of a large monster (that one does involve AoOs)... when a character wants to pass over a gap by "walking" the side wall for a while.... when he swings from rope so as to land someplace..... there are many MANY situations where a character can use tumble... depending on his style and his experience (ranks in tumble)... as you can imagine the DCs set for such things are not so low so as to allow everybody to do them.

Hmm... I have no problem with using Tumble for any of those situations. But, it seems like Tumble is really meant for characters who don't wear armor or wear only light armor.

In my rulebook (which could be different from yours), the very first line says: You cannot use this skill if our speed hs been reduced by armor, excess equipment or loot.

That right there prevents the fighter in plate from rolling "in-between the feet of a large monster".

And, would you allow a character wearing a backpack with 40 lbs of gear in it to "roll in-between the feet of a large monster" even if the acutal weight kept the character at a light load due to his STR?

That backpack wouldn't get in the way? At least draw a penalty modifier to the Tumble throw? (That's what I'd do...allow it, but throw in a circumstance penalty, probably -2).

kitcik · May 13, 2011

Let me start by saying that I am in the camp of:
1) D&D GAI ("game as intended") is not simulationist. You can go back to 1E and see the seeds.
2) If you enjoy a more simulationist game, that is fine by me.

Water Bob said:
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 differences are: a) the tumbling person is taking a specific action (tumbling, not fighting), and b) the tumbling person has a particular skill, which includes skill at avoiding attacks while moving.

Water Bob said:
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.

So it's ok for a spellcaster to do superhuman things, but not for a non-spellcaster? This is a FANTASY game you realize. A high-level non-spellcaster is, in theory, supposed to be just as superhuman as an equally high level caster IMHO (although under RAW this does not work out, admittedly).

Do you really think non-spellcasters need a nerf to make a more realistic game? Do you have to make a Concentration check to cast a spell with a somatic component if you are wearing a backpack? I could go on, but the point is made.

Water Bob said:
The d20 system is just as capable of handling a simulationist approach as it is an abstract approach. I don't play D&D. I play another d20 game, Conan.

Yes, this is a good point. Not only do you play Conan, you play "Water Bob's Simulationist Conan," which is all well and good since you & your players enjoy it. The tough part is for anyone on this board, since none of us has played Water Bob's Simulationist Conan, to evaluate Tumble in your game. We can evaluate it in D&D. In D&D, Tumble is fine as written.

Dandu · May 13, 2011

Do you really think non-spellcasters need a nerf to make a more realistic game? Do you have to make a Concentration check to cast a spell with a somatic component if you are wearing a backpack? I could go on, but the point is made.

Hence why Thinderella the Necromantic Naturist has no backpack... among other things.

Celebrim · May 13, 2011

kitcik said:
In D&D, Tumble is fine as written.

No. As long as we've swerved over into a discussion of balance, under RAW, tumble is underpowered as written. That's because in RAW skills are typically very minor in scope, resulting in situations where skills become less useful as the game goes on and magic items and spells become more common. Flight is better than climb and balance, invisibility is better than hide, polymorph self is better than swim, detect lie is better than sense motive, commune is better than knowledge, freedom of action is better than escape artist and so forth. The fact that Tumble is one of the more useful RAW skills only suggests how weak the skills typically are and how little attention was paid to spells that allow you to emulate high skill.