What are some good House rules for fixing Tumble?

[zorlag]

Tumble

I use this:

Basic tumble check past one opponent is 10 + 5 per 5ft movement on the threatened area. Tumbling through same square as opponents is in adds 10 to DC of the check. If you tumble past multiple opponents, add 5 per addional opponent. Opponents that occupy more than 5x5 area add 10 to tumble DC through the same area as they are only once, every square after that adds only 5.

So 5ft tumble past opponent DC 15, 20ft tumble DC 30, past 4 guards DC 45. That should be hard enough and makes Mobility feat more worthwhile.

Z.

 

[Forrester]

Remember that mithril chainmail has an armour check penalty, which would be deducted from the Tumble check.

What kind of moron wears mithril chainmail? I'm talking about a mithril chain shirt, of course . . .

 

[hong]

What kind of moron wears mithril chainmail? I'm talking about a mithril chain shirt, of course . . .

Since a mithril chain shirt has no armour check penalty, that means it's about as encumbering as a mundane shirt. Your point is what, exactly?

 

[Relic]

It's a little odd that a tumbler gets the same AC whether he's wearing mithril chain or he's naked.

You could say it is a little odd that a guy in a breast plate can have the exact same AC as a guy that has no armor, a high Dex, and the Dodge feat. I wouldn't say it... but it could be said.

I have to say, I like the "Take the check, subtract 10, add it as a Dodge bonus" idea. It double-counts the tumbler's dex bonus, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. (I would even make it so that if you Tumble poorly -- i.e., you roll a one and only have one rank -- you are actually a little easier to hit than normal. Looks like you blew the somersault . . . )

It is all based on the tumble skill check. If the player has a bad roll his AC could actually be worse, not better. Besides, I do not have any problems if his AC is the same or better - that is what this variant of tumbling is supposed to do. If the tumbler is very skilled at tumbling (read: many ranks in tumbling) then he should be good at tumbling past opponents, making it harder for opponents to hit him. This is represented by: higher tumbling skill = higher AC when tumbling.

I suppose it could be based on just exactly what you picture tumbling as. I do not picture it as weaving and dodging, ducking and reeling about; that is dodge. I picture tumbling as cartwheeling and rolling about, relying on the actual movement of the tumble to keep you from getting hit as opposed to relying on reactive movement (i.e. dodge) to avoid being hit.

 

[Forrester]

Since a mithril chain shirt has no armour check penalty, that means it's about as encumbering as a mundane shirt. Your point is what, exactly?

Oh, lord, here we go again. I'm sure you've heard the joke about how winning a flame war is like getting the gold at the Special Olympics, hong . . . the POINT is that with one variant posted, you have the same AC (your Tumble check) regardless of whether you are wearing armor (i.e., a mithril chain shirt). This does not make sense to me . . . hence, I am in favor of one of the other variants posted, i.e., you take the Tumble check, subtract 10, and add what's left over to the tumbler's AC as a Dodge bonus.

That would be my point, exactly.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Not precisely the issue which you are looking for, but I have a different problem with tumble as written.

Tumble through an opponent on DC25. Even if you blow the roll, you still get past them.

Personally, I hate this. So in my campaign if you blow your roll to tumble *through* an occupied square, you bounce off the person and end up prone in the square in front of them. This doesn't affect the 10th level rogues who can take 10 and make the DC25 without blinking, but it stops people with just a couple of ranks of tumble making it through a blockade.

Cheers

 

[hong]

Oh, lord, here we go again. I'm sure you've heard the joke about how winning a flame war is like getting the gold at the Special Olympics, hong . . .

You say that like it's a negative thing.

the POINT is that with one variant posted, you have the same AC (your Tumble check) regardless of whether you are wearing armor (i.e., a mithril chain shirt). This does not make sense to me . . .

"Mithril: as light as a feather, and as hard as dragon scales!" -- Bilbo, in some movie or other

"Also, there is this!" said Bilbo, bringing out a parcel which seemed to be rather heavy for its size. He unwound several folds of old cloth, and held up a small shirt of mail. It was close-woven of many rings, as supple almost as linen, cold as ice, and harder than steel." -- A passage from some book or other.

 

[Coredump]

Hong, I believe you are taking his critique in the wrong direction. As I read it, he is saying that if you have rogue 'Fred', and he tumbles past an opponent, he should have a *better* AC if he is also wearing a chain shirt (mithril).

He is not saying that the shirt should slow him down, and make it easier to hit him, but that having the shirt on should still protect him some.

With the variant posted of the tumble check *replacing* the AC, than it doesn't matter if he is wearing plain clothes, Mithril chain, or +15 bracers.
Now the other variant suggested, that he seems to like better, is to *add* part of the tumble check onto the AC; thus taking into account the armour also.

 

[hong]

Hong, I believe you are taking his critique in the wrong direction. As I read it, he is saying that if you have rogue 'Fred', and he tumbles past an opponent, he should have a *better* AC if he is also wearing a chain shirt (mithril).

He is not saying that the shirt should slow him down, and make it easier to hit him, but that having the shirt on should still protect him some.

Ah, right. That makes sense, then. What you can do is to use the Tumble check result only if it's higher than your normal AC. Thus someone wearing armour would need to roll a better check to gain a benefit than someone without.

 

[Forrester]

Ah, right. That makes sense, then. What you can do is to use the Tumble check result only if it's higher than your normal AC. Thus someone wearing armour would need to roll a better check to gain a benefit than someone without.

Which, again, doesn't make sense, as there's no reason that the guy wearing armor should need to tumble better than the guy without armor (again, we're assuming no armor check penalty here) to get a benefit. And because he's wearing armor, his net benefit will always be lower than that of the naked guy.

Hence the reason the Dodge bonus is a good idea. I think I might change it a bit -- as the rule stands one's Dex gets double-counted (added on to normal AC, *and* added on to the Tumble check), and upon further reflection I'm not sure that's a good idea -- it should probably only be counted once.