Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sullivan" data-source="post: 2132070" data-attributes="member: 28152">Depends on if you are feeling like a RatBDM? It is rather ambigous about that. I'd rule DC 25, 27, 29. But I think that's mostly appealing to my Shadowrun sensibilities. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> It also makes the accounting easier if the player hasn't decided yet how far to go (visibility at the start of the Tumble precludes knowing the ultimate end point) when starting out. Note: I would also rule DC 25, 17, 19, 31 if you were tumbling through an square occupied square, then past two threatening opponents and finally through another occupied square. Basically I'd be treating the accumulating penalties for each check and then adding up the accumulated so far along with the relavent surface modifiers, worst choice among the squares for which I'm doing the check, in the second table. I would also NOT require an extra DC 15+ Tumble check for an opponent I just passed through, I'd just use the same die result. Baring a DC adjustment for surface conditions more than 10 about those in which the enemy is, this means automatic success. Same thing if the PC declares before rolling the dice for a DC 15+ check that he will definately also use it (barring decapitation) for trying to move through the enemy. Saves a die roll or two, which is good. But these are all pretty much soft house rules because I don't really see justification either way for any of the senarios.</blockquote>

Verification