Tumble problems

[Dandu]

Even if DnD was based on Tolkien, why would that preclude things like Tumble? Sure, Aragon might not have turned cartwheels, but Gandalf never turned into a Balor and stopped time either.

 

[pneumatik]

So Water Bob wants to play a realistic and gritty Tolkien-esque game using 3rd ed? Awesome. But while Tolkien was certainly an influence in original DnD, it's not the basis for 3rd edition and up. Those later versions of DnD just don't model Middle Earth. I'm not trying to say you can't or shouldn't use 3E+ to play a Middle Earth game, but if you want a good mechanical fit you'll have to make some houserules. That's awesome, too. But if you ask people who play 3E generally about tumble they'll tell you it's not broken or ridiculous.

That's it. Tumble as written doesn't fit in Middle Earth, but 3E+ is defined by its rules, not any specific setting. By that definition tumble must fit into 3E+. If you want to use tumble in your Middle Earth game, tone it down. If you want to discuss it, post a houserules thread that talks about how to use 3E+ to mechanically model Middle Earth. It'll be great.

 

[Ranger19k]

But did you read the article? Are you open to being convinced?

I read it. I learned a lot. Thanks for posting. I don't really care one way or another, but I thought that Scurvy Platypus's points on Vancian magic were pretty astute. The Gygax letter shows a deep dislike (and some poor understanding) of Tolken's Middle Earth, something that makes it clear that he thought that it was a poor basis for creating a fantasy gaming world out of.

Interesting food for thought. I had always assumed that "of course" D&D was directly Tolkenesque, but the commentary at the bottom of the webpage makes a good point about how the popularity of the books at the time and how Gygax was attempting to woo other fantasy gamers to his game could have contributed to the Tolkenesque PC race choices in OD&D. Since that seems to be the most direct link between the two, I guess I'm willing to reconsider my original assumption. Divine and Arcane magic are a big part of the game, and they do not work in any kind of Tolkenesque way.

Not that I think that there isn't any Tolkien influence, but maybe not as strong an influence as I had originally assumed.

Thanks Vegepygmy for making me think a bit, and I will now get out of Waterbob's thread since I have nothing useful or new to share about the Tumble Skill.

 

[Aluvial]

Odd thread this one....

To the OP: I used an opposed check to determine Tumblin' success. The AoO roll of the opponent the creature is trying to roll/jump/shimmy/slide/wiggle/glide past versus the (maxed out) tumble check of the acrobat/clown.

I never liked the thief just rolling past the BBEG. If the tumbler loses, the opponent must roll again (same bonus) against the AC to hit.

If the tumbler is trying to roll through someone, then the tumbler takes a negative 10 on the roll. If the opponent makes touch attacks, the tumbler takes the difference in his AC value off their roll as well.

I do the same thing with combat casting. It is an opposed roll. The con check vs the thing trying to smash the wizard into butter.

These few ideas were suggested at the onset of 3.0 by Cook, and I've adopted and used them since. No fuss, one extra roll, no big deal for my group.

And I thought I'd get away without commenting on the Tolkien thing... but I just can't do it.

My view of DnD is that is a amalgamation of whatever you want it to be. I believe that my campaign is a complete mix of all the ideas I've read, things I've experienced, places I've gone, food that I've tried, women that I've kissed. DnD incorporates whatever you want it to have. I have elves and dwarves... and they seem pretty damn Tolkien to me, but I also use warfarged, Baklunish, tieflings, lizard men, and elans as races. I have a TON of house rules. I make one or two up a game... some stick, some suck. I like the idea of the Old Ones floating just beyond the veil. I like beholders and flumphs. My players fought agianst a three headed advanced Nessian hell hound beast of legend with a few levels of psychic warrior thrown in. That THING was BEAST!!!! We had a great time. I ripped the whole thing off.

Do tumble whichever way you want. Thanks for listening/reading my silly post.

Aluvial

 

[Water Bob]

So Water Bob wants to play a realistic and gritty Tolkien-esque game using 3rd ed?

You've basically just said, "I barely skimmed the thread before I jumped in and shared my opinion before I knew what the thread was about."

My game is far, far removed from being considered "tolkien-esque".

 

[Celebrim]

Does anybody have a problem with the Tumble skill? It doesn't seem to fit the D&D tolkien-esque universe at all. You've got a Daryl-Hannah-Type-In-Blade-Runner come flopping your way, doing the cheerleader thing, and you can't touch her with an Attack of Opportunity as you moves through your square?

I have some problems with the Tumble skill as written, but not the ones you outline.

First, D&D can be used to fit the sort of Tolkien-lite universe of concensus fantasy, but it also can be broadly adapted to just about any fantasy paradygm with at least the accuracy that it models Tolkien (and in many cases more accuracy).

Secondly, Tumble is the skill of evading attacks through acts of agility. This in no fashion has to represent doing flips and somersaults. How you describe the act of using tumble to evade an attack is up to you at the DM. You don't have to describe it as doing somersalts, and you probably won't if you have gritty combat as part of your settings fluff. Instead you'll describe it as bobbing, weaving, and feinting to make yourself an impossible target.

If her skill is high enough, she can overcome the armor penalty and tumble right by you in armor, albeit light armor.

Sure, but if she's more than 6th level or so, she probably isn't from either the real world or the Tolkien universe. Above 6th level, you are dealing with 'The Batman' and other superheroic characters.

And what about her equipment? Are her daggers tied to their scabbards? Do her belt pouches jingle, make a lot of noise, and flap back and forth beating her in the gut and groin?

Presumably the skill of tumble includes training in how to stow your gear in such a way that it doesn't interfere with your tumbling.

It seems to me that the DM should be very strict on this skill and its use, limiting what the chartacter carries (even more than the weight limitations--an almost empty backback would seem to screw one up).

What do you think?

I think you are reverse engineering what you think Tumble represent - Darryl Hannah style flips and such during combat - and coming to the conclusion that its 'not realistic' (in your setting). Rather than doing that, I think you should accept that your fluff is not realistic and adopt more realistic fluff for the mechanics. Start with the assumption of what it mechanically allows you to do and then work out what fluff that represents in your setting.

My biggest problem with tumble is that the difficulty doesn't scale. Rather than an opposed roll, I keep a single roll with a difficulty that scales with the target's BAB.

 

[WHW4]

To the OP: I used an opposed check to determine Tumblin' success. The AoO roll of the opponent the creature is trying to roll/jump/shimmy/slide/wiggle/glide past versus the (maxed out) tumble check of the acrobat/clown

This is actually quite similar to the Base Attack Check from Iron Heroes. In that game, it's a Tumble v. BAB+STR/DEX (whichever is higher). Supposed to represent martial skill at avoiding things like that. Very neat that you came up with the same solution, Aluvial, I like the mechanic myself.

OP, have you looked at Iron Heroes at all? It's a d20 3.5 derivative that does away with magic items and instead builds those boni into the character progression/feats. Characters get more feats, the feats are broken down into Mastery trees, and each class has different limits on what "mastery rating" they can go up to in any given tree to keep things balanced. The stunting section I imagine you wouldn't be a fan of, given your previous posts and your current Immersive Combat thread; but that section is easily ignored.

 

[pneumatik]

You've basically just said, "I barely skimmed the thread before I jumped in and shared my opinion before I knew what the thread was about."

My game is far, far removed from being considered "tolkien-esque".

For your information I did read the entire thread. I was drunk, though.

Second, either you're purposefully responding to what isn't the point of the post or you don't get my post. My point is that DnD isn't built to do what you want it to. So if you want to use it for your preferred style of game you'll need to make mechanical changes. If you use Tolkien as a basis for what makes sense in your game then lots of things in DnD won't make sense.

And that's all okay. But it doesn't mean there's something wrong with DnD, it just means you want to play a different game.

 

[Water Bob]

For your information I did read the entire thread. I was drunk, though.

LOL. OK, you get a pass.

Second, either you're purposefully responding to what isn't the point of the post or you don't get my post. My point is that DnD isn't built to do what you want it to. So if you want to use it for your preferred style of game you'll need to make mechanical changes.

See, that's looking through narrow DnD glasses at the very adaptable d20 system. Look around. There are plenty of d20 games, from the fantastic to the grim and gritty, all using the same basic system, albeit with different assumptions on some rules and mechanics tweaks here and there.

And that's all okay. But it doesn't mean there's something wrong with DnD, it just means you want to play a different game.

Do you consider d20 Traveller, d20 Star Wars, d20 Blue Planet, d20 Fading Suns, d20 Conan, d20 Black Company, d20 Thieves World, d20 Spy Craft...etc...as different games or all version of the same game?

I recognize that each are a version of the same game, and the d20 is quite capable of returning whatever results you are looking for, from the abstract game to the historic simulation, from the high fantasy setting to the dark, grim, and gritty reality-based games.

 

[Hassassin]

See, that's looking through narrow DnD glasses at the very adaptable d20 system. Look around. There are plenty of d20 games, from the fantastic to the grim and gritty, all using the same basic system, albeit with different assumptions on some rules and mechanics tweaks here and there.

Exactly, so if you want to play a gritty game of the sort you describe (rather than the standard mishmash of various themes) you can either remove/change Tumble or describe it in a different way.

That is, change the rules or change your assumptions.

The latter is easier, since house rules tend to pile up. Just describe it as dodging and feinting (rather than doing cartwheels), assume that the moves are no fiercer that the rest of combat and you are good to go.