With only a 15 DC tumble check to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity from anything, tumble seems a but overpowered to me. With synergy bonuses and good stats a 6th level character can auto-tumble against anything from a kobald to a demigod. I have thought about changing tumble so that your tumble check equals your AC instead. Thus making tumble a bit more realistic based on the level of whatever youre fighting. Thoughts?
Tumble too powerful?
Pathfinder blended Tumble into its combat maneuver system to create a scaling result. That seems to work reasonably well.
It seems odd that your AC would suffer because you are wearing armor. The Tumble check is reduced by armor modifiers. While I don't disagree a fellow in magical plate should suffer a penalty to nimbly cartwheeling about the battlefield, I question whether this would reduce the effectiveness of all that metal in protecting him from an attack.
Perhaps the DC should be 10 + CR (or HD, or BAB if you want combat skill to factor into it) of the opponent if you want to scale up - a little easier against that Kobold, but much tougher against a demigod.
It seems odd that your AC would suffer because you are wearing armor. The Tumble check is reduced by armor modifiers. While I don't disagree a fellow in magical plate should suffer a penalty to nimbly cartwheeling about the battlefield, I question whether this would reduce the effectiveness of all that metal in protecting him from an attack.
Perhaps the DC should be 10 + CR (or HD, or BAB if you want combat skill to factor into it) of the opponent if you want to scale up - a little easier against that Kobold, but much tougher against a demigod.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Power-wise, Tumble is a moderately useful but specialized skill. How often do you really want to move past or away from someone in melee anyway? Not that often, unless you're a scout or are using some unusual tactics. The other uses for Tumble come up even less often (reducing a fall is nice, tumbling through someone's space is rarely relevant unless it's a really confined space).
From a sheer balance perspective, I don't see that Tumble needs fixing. Even dedicated athletic/acrobatic rogues occasionally skip it in my experience. It isn't nearly as useful as Hide, Move Silently, Balance, Escape Artist, or Swim, in the pantheon of athletic skills.
If you simply wanted to change things so that the Tumble DC is based on the skill of the attacker you are tumbling past, I'd say there are better ways; I'd consider simply adding the BAB of the attacker to the DC to tumble past him.
From a sheer balance perspective, I don't see that Tumble needs fixing. Even dedicated athletic/acrobatic rogues occasionally skip it in my experience. It isn't nearly as useful as Hide, Move Silently, Balance, Escape Artist, or Swim, in the pantheon of athletic skills.
If you simply wanted to change things so that the Tumble DC is based on the skill of the attacker you are tumbling past, I'd say there are better ways; I'd consider simply adding the BAB of the attacker to the DC to tumble past him.
Kinak
First Post
Having a static DC is kind of weird, although there are still the modifiers from terrain you should consider.
That said, I don't think it will cause you any balance issues. Its closest equivalent is casting defensively, which allows threat-free spellcasting pretty early in the campaign. Letting rogues move around the battlefield without attacks of opportunity shouldn't give you any problems.
If I were going to make it scale, I'd probably set it to something like 10 + BAB so that it scales more evenly through the campaign. Having it be static does have the benefit that you can eventually just stop rolling, however. At least, I'd just assume they're immune to AoOs from movement once they hit +14 to Acrobatics checks.
Cheers!
Kinak
That said, I don't think it will cause you any balance issues. Its closest equivalent is casting defensively, which allows threat-free spellcasting pretty early in the campaign. Letting rogues move around the battlefield without attacks of opportunity shouldn't give you any problems.
If I were going to make it scale, I'd probably set it to something like 10 + BAB so that it scales more evenly through the campaign. Having it be static does have the benefit that you can eventually just stop rolling, however. At least, I'd just assume they're immune to AoOs from movement once they hit +14 to Acrobatics checks.
Cheers!
Kinak
tomBitonti
Adventurer
The static DC is weird, and, I would say, broken. Fixed DC's are a terrible design. A DEX based character (+4 Dex bonus) will have a +14 at 8'th level (+4, +11 skill points), making all simple tumble checks.
My local group has a house rule that tumble does not remove the AOO. Instead, tumble modifies the characters AC by +1 per point above the DC 15 value. For example, a 20 result provides a +5 bonus to AC (Tumble check of 20 - Tumble DC of 15).
Other modifiers still apply, these being mainly Mobility (+4 to AC), and an escalation of the DC by +2 for each successive opponent (DC 15 for the first opponent, DC 17 for the second, and so on). Tumbling through an opponent is DC 25.
Don't have a fix for Casting Defensively, but it has a similar problem. I haven't gotten a good formula that provides good values while being simple enough to use. The problem here is that allowing an attack against a caster, even with an AC modifier, is often a huge penalty to casting, since caster AC's tend to be low.
This is an area which 4E got a whole lot better. That is, there are a lot of problems with skill checks in 3E. There are related problems with spells which require a skill checks, especially ones which use Balance, which few players take. Spells which require balance checks perhaps should instead require Reflex saves.
Thx!
TomB
My local group has a house rule that tumble does not remove the AOO. Instead, tumble modifies the characters AC by +1 per point above the DC 15 value. For example, a 20 result provides a +5 bonus to AC (Tumble check of 20 - Tumble DC of 15).
Other modifiers still apply, these being mainly Mobility (+4 to AC), and an escalation of the DC by +2 for each successive opponent (DC 15 for the first opponent, DC 17 for the second, and so on). Tumbling through an opponent is DC 25.
Don't have a fix for Casting Defensively, but it has a similar problem. I haven't gotten a good formula that provides good values while being simple enough to use. The problem here is that allowing an attack against a caster, even with an AC modifier, is often a huge penalty to casting, since caster AC's tend to be low.
This is an area which 4E got a whole lot better. That is, there are a lot of problems with skill checks in 3E. There are related problems with spells which require a skill checks, especially ones which use Balance, which few players take. Spells which require balance checks perhaps should instead require Reflex saves.
Thx!
TomB
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Tumbling with a static DC isn't broken at all. Being able to move past an enemy in melee without taking an AoO isn't a huge benefit to most PCs except the ones who need to manage it - mainly rogues and other mid-range BAB characters who rely on positioning to improve their ability to hit enemies in melee.
The fixed DC also enables the tumblers to focus on developing that skill to a level in which they are comfortable with their performance and then shift ranks in subsequent levels to other skills. Having played with both 3e's and PF's take on tumbling through melee, I prefer the 3e model. Big, high HD/high strengths monsters in PF are simply much tougher to tumble around than they should be.
The fixed DC also enables the tumblers to focus on developing that skill to a level in which they are comfortable with their performance and then shift ranks in subsequent levels to other skills. Having played with both 3e's and PF's take on tumbling through melee, I prefer the 3e model. Big, high HD/high strengths monsters in PF are simply much tougher to tumble around than they should be.
Tumble is fine. If you have enough points in it, you can move around as you like at half speed. It's mostly used by Rogues, who are one of the least powerful classes in 3.5.
4e instead gives the Rogue a lot of powers that lets him shift multiple squares, so sure, they don't get tumble, instead they get an alternative thats just about as good.
4e instead gives the Rogue a lot of powers that lets him shift multiple squares, so sure, they don't get tumble, instead they get an alternative thats just about as good.
tomBitonti
Adventurer
At 4'th level character who has a 16 DEX (+3) and mobility (+4) and 7 tumble ranks (+7) has a +14 tumble bonus already, for automatic success against the first opponent. What's the point of having a tumble roll when automatic success is so easy to reach?
At 10'th level a rogue with an 20 DEX and +4 Dex nimble gloves (or whatever), mobility, and 13 tumble ranks, has a +24 tumble check. The tumble DC for moving past opponents has become rather completely pointless.
There is a problem when player / opponent CRs become too far apart.
Having fixed DCs for what are in essence are opposed checks seems to be an odd design.
Thx!
TomB
At 10'th level a rogue with an 20 DEX and +4 Dex nimble gloves (or whatever), mobility, and 13 tumble ranks, has a +24 tumble check. The tumble DC for moving past opponents has become rather completely pointless.
There is a problem when player / opponent CRs become too far apart.
Having fixed DCs for what are in essence are opposed checks seems to be an odd design.
Thx!
TomB
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It's not really an opposed check. It's a check to determine if the tumbler can move without dropping his guard enough to allow an attack of opportunity. As such, it can easily seen to be all about him, not his target's ability to fight. That said, I would have been content if PF had included a feat or two (perhaps in the combat reflexes chain) to specifically raise the DC of tumble checks around that opponent.
But let's look a little more at your estimated values. Mobility does not add to tumble checks. It adds to the AC of a character suffering an AoO from movement only. So that 4th level character's ability has just dropped to +10. Still an easy check, right? That's why the additional modifiers on the DC become interesting. He may be able to move without an AoO on a flat, clear floor and at half speed - netting him, on average, 2 squares more than his 5' step - not exactly ground breaking but nice and with only a 20% chance of failure. Suppose he wants to move farther, particularly if he wants to get through the threat range of a large creature to flank it with his fighter buddy? Moving half speed probably won't cut it so he wants to do a full speed tumble - which has a DC of 25. Now, it's not so easy and he's more likely to fail (70%) than succeed.
Or maybe he wants to flank the guardsman who is blocking progress in a narrow corridor. To tumble through, he needs a 25 to move half speed. Again, more likely to fail than succeed at 4th level. Make it a huge creature and he needs to full speed tumble through at DC 35.
Now suppose this is going on in a natural cavern with its typical uneven floor. Add 5 to all of those DCs. Even a mildly difficult area like gravel, slick with dew, or with undergrowth adds 2.
It's true that a high enough tumble value makes rolling the tumble check pointless (though I would prefer the term unnecessary) - this is not a bad thing. Being able to have an auto-success makes the game run smoothly. But it does require a non-negligible investment to have gotten that far. And, in my book, that's good enough.
If the opponent has Reach, Tumble allows you to close or withdraw. That's a further benefit. Through a space - sometimes, for Large creatures on up.
I don't see it necessarily crying out for a fix, but I see it used at least as much as the skills you cite, more than some. I agree a modifier for the opponent's BAB would be the best fix.
Until his GM reads the Mobility feat, which does not modify the Tumble check. Then he has +10 and gets a smack from the GM for not reading the 40 or so words that make up his feat. Assuming he is carrying a light load and has no armor check penalty (true of most Rogues, anyway).
+20 once someone actually reads Mobility. His Wizard teammate has +20 Spellcraft - what rolls is he at risk of failing? Automatic success for most tricks seems the stuff of legend - which is my expectation for a 10th level character in an area of expertise. YMMV. If it is desired as an opposed check, then a BAB modifier to the DC makes sense.
Similar Threads
