-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Tumble problems
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
Dandu
First Post
I'd like to do the same to grappler and see how well the wrestling goes. I can't imagine how having a giant sword hilt jutting out from your waist and being driven into your opponent's body could throw off your grappling.
If you're going to enforce absurd gear related circumstance penalties, you might as well go all the way. It would only be more realistic and what's more, lead to great characters like Thinderella, the Necromantic Naturist, who adventures with her White Swallow, a martial artist thief who subdues groups of enemies with her flurry of blows and can slip her hands into even the tightest of crevices.
Last edited:
Rhun
First Post
And anyone that thinks that Tolkien was the only influence on the game has never flipped to page 224 of the AD&D DMG and read through the list of Inspirational Reading. While Tolkien is on the list, Gygax notes in that section that de Camp & Pratt, R.E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H.P. Lovecraft and A. Merritt were probably the most immediate influences upon AD&D. And that's the creator of the game talking.
Celebrim
Legend
Water Bob: Power acrobatic tumbling like that is very visually stunning and attractive, and I can certainly see why it makes an impression on people but I'm going to have to disagree with the assement of what is being described in the tumble skill. That is tumbling as a performance art; that is not combat tumbling, and I don't think it would make you particularly hard to hit.
The problem with it is that it isn't reactive, and so against a skilled opponent it doesn't really do you any good at all - or at least no more good than running in a straight line (and at higher speed) would do you. It's going to leave you open to attack, unable to compensate to move away from an attack, and off balance. If anything, the sort of tumbles presented in those videos should draw attacks of oppurtunity and not negate them because my 'common sense rule' for what draws an attack of oppurtunity is 'anything you do that isn't actively defending yourself from attack'.
To me, when tumble is used to negate an attack of oppurtunity, it's quite similar conceptually to useing the ride skill and mounted combat - and the speed and agility of your mount - to negate attacks on your mount. It's not that you take your mount into a somersalt, it's that you simply use your speed to react to an attack in such a way that your skill at riding effectively becomes your AC. I see tumble very much in the same way, as reacting to an attack in an agile way such that the attacker is unable to adjust his attack to your movement.
You seem to have a target, and then you swing and you whiff. Against a skilled combatant, that power tumbling that you admire - while impressive atheletic - presents no obstacle to striking the target because it must be preformed with a regular precision in order for the tumbler to maintain his balance. You know precisely where he will land and can simply balestra to position (forward or backward as needed) and strike.
To a certain extent, I'm sympathetic with you. I don't know how many times I've had players forget that they don't have three (or four) hands, and that they can't wield a sword and a shield, and carry a lantern, while closely inspecting a mcguffin that they've just found. Players are very prone to forgetting that there characters exist in a real place with real physical constraints, and loading up with 80 lbs of bulky gear as if it was of no consequence. If you are worried about that particularly, my suggestion would be rather than punishing the Tumble skill particularly to simply raise the armor penalties from encumbrance and armor across the board.
However, in my experience this is unnecessary if you as the DM don't forget that that real world is not flat and dry and ask for balance, climb, swim, etc. checks at regular intervals as the terrain demands. But by and large, you shouldn't make this part of the game too tedious. You shouldn't make your players describe exactly how they are stowing each bit of gear. Just do a sanity check once a level or so to make sure that they are stowing the gear.
The problem with it is that it isn't reactive, and so against a skilled opponent it doesn't really do you any good at all - or at least no more good than running in a straight line (and at higher speed) would do you. It's going to leave you open to attack, unable to compensate to move away from an attack, and off balance. If anything, the sort of tumbles presented in those videos should draw attacks of oppurtunity and not negate them because my 'common sense rule' for what draws an attack of oppurtunity is 'anything you do that isn't actively defending yourself from attack'.
To me, when tumble is used to negate an attack of oppurtunity, it's quite similar conceptually to useing the ride skill and mounted combat - and the speed and agility of your mount - to negate attacks on your mount. It's not that you take your mount into a somersalt, it's that you simply use your speed to react to an attack in such a way that your skill at riding effectively becomes your AC. I see tumble very much in the same way, as reacting to an attack in an agile way such that the attacker is unable to adjust his attack to your movement.
You seem to have a target, and then you swing and you whiff. Against a skilled combatant, that power tumbling that you admire - while impressive atheletic - presents no obstacle to striking the target because it must be preformed with a regular precision in order for the tumbler to maintain his balance. You know precisely where he will land and can simply balestra to position (forward or backward as needed) and strike.
To a certain extent, I'm sympathetic with you. I don't know how many times I've had players forget that they don't have three (or four) hands, and that they can't wield a sword and a shield, and carry a lantern, while closely inspecting a mcguffin that they've just found. Players are very prone to forgetting that there characters exist in a real place with real physical constraints, and loading up with 80 lbs of bulky gear as if it was of no consequence. If you are worried about that particularly, my suggestion would be rather than punishing the Tumble skill particularly to simply raise the armor penalties from encumbrance and armor across the board.
However, in my experience this is unnecessary if you as the DM don't forget that that real world is not flat and dry and ask for balance, climb, swim, etc. checks at regular intervals as the terrain demands. But by and large, you shouldn't make this part of the game too tedious. You shouldn't make your players describe exactly how they are stowing each bit of gear. Just do a sanity check once a level or so to make sure that they are stowing the gear.
aboyd
Explorer
I never wrote any such thing.
The problem with Tumble, the real problem is that in it's an entirely separate system than the one provided for everyone else. Think about it, Tumble is effectively a form of "defense" against Attacks of Opp, arguably even more effective than regular defense is.
It's easy to consider tumble the act of dodging blows or "dextrous body awareness" that prevents a foe from getting the opportunity to strike... but why can't you use tumble in other circumstances as well?
Simply doing backflips shouldn't make you invincible as far as attacks of opportunity goes... but they do.
And that's a poor implementation of the rules.
However, to Water Bob... if you accept that Tumble is what it is the Tumble Skill would be how the player accounts for their ability to not jingle and jangle shuck and jive whilst tumbling. Just like a skilled Diplomat knows what to say, when to say it, and just the correct intonation... so would a skilled Tumbler know how to move in his or her armor, how to prevent their sword from mashing them in the face, and so forth.
It's easy to consider tumble the act of dodging blows or "dextrous body awareness" that prevents a foe from getting the opportunity to strike... but why can't you use tumble in other circumstances as well?
Simply doing backflips shouldn't make you invincible as far as attacks of opportunity goes... but they do.
And that's a poor implementation of the rules.
However, to Water Bob... if you accept that Tumble is what it is the Tumble Skill would be how the player accounts for their ability to not jingle and jangle shuck and jive whilst tumbling. Just like a skilled Diplomat knows what to say, when to say it, and just the correct intonation... so would a skilled Tumbler know how to move in his or her armor, how to prevent their sword from mashing them in the face, and so forth.
Dandu
First Post
Vegepygmy
First Post
Please clarify. Is it "downplaying Tolkien's influence" to opine that other authors were more influential on early D&D than Tolkien was? Or is it only "downplaying Tolkien's influence" if I deny that he had any influence on the game?
aboyd
Explorer
All I know is that after reading the thread, the impression I have is that some people were deliberately downplaying Tolkein's influence to a debatable level because it was a convenient way to undermine Water Bob's reasons for enjoying his style of game. Like we are bullying him for "having fun wrong" or some such. This is simply my own personal impression.
I don't care why he likes his game; he simply does. Of course he has reasons, but I feel it is discourteous to judge his motivations and flag his experience as invalid.
To speak plainly, I don't feel that this thread has gone well for those arguing with him, even if they are in the right. Personally, I feel there is too much subjective opinion involved to conclude that there is an objective "right" answer here, but even if we grant that those arguing against him ARE right, it doesn't change the fact that they've behaved rudely to get there.
My esteem for a few in this thread is waning due to their derisive posts. I am saddened to experience that. I would prefer that those engaged in the discussion here find ways to allow people to enjoy themselves, stop expecting people to have to justify their own happiness, and stop presenting straw men as a way to over-exaggerate the flaws of opposing viewpoints.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
