Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Crusher217 09-21-07, 10:02 PM	Am I the only one that despises tumble because it makes it way to easy to avoid attack of opportunities? Would it be fair to change it to make your tumble check replace your armor class for the attack of opportunity, or should I just increase the DC by which you should need to avoid Attacks of Opportunity?
Some_call_me_Tim 09-21-07, 10:45 PM	Am I the only one that despises tumble because it makes it way to easy to avoid attack of opportunities?No, but do you feel the same about concentration checks? I often see rants about tumble but very few against concentration, which provides a similar benefit. I've never really had a problem with it. Would it be fair to change it to make your tumble check replace your armor class for the attack of opportunity, or should I just increase the DC by which you should need to avoid Attacks of Opportunity?Making it your AC, much like a ride check with the Mounted Combat feat, is an interesting option. Although it seems at first glance, to me at least, that your tumble check result may not keep pace with your AC or your foe's attack bonus. It would definitely spoil anything but maxed out use of the skill as a few ranks ain't gonna cut it. Right now, a decent DEX and a couple of ranks of tumble and you avoid 50% of AoOs. Under your proposal such a tumble would be suicide.
Suzu 09-21-07, 10:47 PM	AoO are a pain in the arse anyway.
Salla 09-21-07, 10:50 PM	No, but do you feel the same about concentration checks? I often see rants about tumble but very few against concentration, which provides a similar benefit. I've never really had a problem with it. Making it your AC, much like a ride check with the Mounted Combat feat, is an interesting option. Although it seems at first glance, to me at least, that your tumble check result may not keep pace with your AC or your foe's attack bonus. It would definitely spoil anything but maxed out use of the skill as a few ranks ain't gonna cut it. Right now, a decent DEX and a couple of ranks of tumble and you avoid 50% of AoOs. Under your proposal such a tumble would be suicide. Yes-and-no. The DC 15 is for tumbling past one opponent at half speed. That's usually pretty easy. The DC for moving full speed increases by 10. If you need to pass through the opponent's space, the base DC is 25, and every additional AoO you're avoiding increases the DC by 2. Oh, and don't forget armor check penalties, uneven terrain ... There are times you will need more than +14 in your Tumble for a 'clean sweep', and I've never really had a problem with it at any rate.
heffroncm 09-22-07, 12:11 AM	Well, take a good mid-level Rogue. Ranks = 14 Dex Bonus = +6 Synergy Bonus = 2 Armor Check Penalty = 0 You've got a 22. You can move full speed with one opponent, or half-speed through one opponent, or half-speed through a square threatened by 6 opponents, 85% of the time. Start adding these up a bit, and it quickly gets very hard. Note that this a character who has spent 19 ranks on Tumble, and focused the proper stat to 22. Not an extreme investment for the dextrous character, but much more than the average character can manage.
BattleaxeField 09-22-07, 12:47 PM	So many times on these boards, you see someone who complains that a certain skill/feat/whatever is too powerful, without seeming to consider what the character has to trade off. I play a very dexterous fighter who is good at tumbling. Yes, that helps me avoid attacks of opportunity most of the time. The biggest tradeoff is that I have to wear lighter armor, and therefore get hit more often by the regular attacks. Close-combat players who focus on dexterity generally have other more subtle tradeoffs. They are not as strong as a standard melee fighter, for one, which means they deal less damage. In addition, my character is by far the best tumbler in our party, but I end up drawing almost the same number of attacks of opportunity. The reason is my combat style is very different. I avoid AoOs by tumbling. They avoid them by avoiding provoking actions. Also, in order for my investment in tumble ranks to be worth anything, I have to be up close and personal to my opponents most of the time, which means I get attacked more often than other party members, especially when fighting monsters without ranged attacks. Please try to consider the character concept as a whole before changing something so fundamental.
Some_call_me_Tim 09-22-07, 02:30 PM	The biggest tradeoff is that I have to wear lighter armor, and therefore get hit more often by the regular attacks.Should have been a dwarf. :P Please try to consider the character concept as a whole before changing something so fundamental.What I think happens is they see one character min-maxed to exploit one rule then decide the rule must be broken. Sure a high-level rogue can pretty much wander around the battlefield with impunity, but they have a lot invested in being able to do that.
Salla 09-22-07, 04:07 PM	Should have been a dwarf. :P What I think happens is they see one character min-maxed to exploit one rule then decide the rule must be broken. Sure a high-level rogue can pretty much wander around the battlefield with impunity, but they have a lot invested in being able to do that. It's also pretty much a NECESSITY for the rogue, who relies on his battlefield position (aka flanking) to contribute to fights.
DMCuindless 09-24-07, 03:43 AM	How I chose to combat the overuse of tumble in my campaign was to design a feat negating it. This way, it doesn't fundamentally change how the game works, not eveyone can stop the tumbling character and your players can access a similar ability if they choose. By doing it this way, usually only BBEGs or major fights are changed and it is at the cost of other, sometimes more useful feats.
Nom 09-24-07, 08:56 AM	IMO, "overuse of tumble" misunderstands the rules. (1) There are already a bunch of ways to avoid AoOs for movement, from the rather limited (Withdraw, 5 ft. step) to the highly flexible (Spring Attack). Tumble falls in the middle; you can avoid anything, the more creatures there are, the nastier the terrain, and the faster you move, the harder the check. And that's ignoring the many other options that simply bypass the AoOs in the first place. Cover (even from allies), total concealment or teleportation for example. (2) Movement based AoOs make it harder to move freely around the battlefield. Tumble represents specific training at moving freely around the battlefield, and is granted to those classes that are supposed to do so. Why rant about Tumble, when Spring Attack is effective at a lower level* and more available to fighters and barbarians than to rogues and monks? * Spring Attack: 3 feats, BAB +4, immunity to AoO from 1 opponent, full speed, unaffected by terrain. * Tumble: DC 15 against first opponent (at about level 6 can do this reliably) when moving half speed through good terrain. DC increases fairly easily.
Gargs454 09-27-07, 12:41 PM	I may be mistaken (so please correct me if I'm wrong) but I also believe that the RAW require a separate Tumble check for each opponent you try to tumble past, with the DC increasing by +2 each time. So, although a maxed out Tumbler is still going to make most of his tumble checks, he still has to do 6 checks to tumble past 6 opponents, meaning that he will still fairly often provoke at least 1 or 2 AoO's. i do think that all in all its a fair tradeoff.
DrMorganes 09-27-07, 01:13 PM	And let's not forget just exactly what one must pay to have such uber tumbling ability. There are a total of 8 base classes (rogue, monk, bard, beguiler, ninja, scout, spellthief, swashbuckler) in the game (9 if you count the psychic rogue) Tumble on their class skill list. Only 2 have 8 skill points per level; the rest have 6 or fewer. The point here - an Nom pointed out - is that the few classes able to Tumble with impunity are those designed to do so. These classes carry with them inherent balancing factors, including low AC, d6 hit die, and 3/4 BAB progression. These classes must also choose to make a major investment in the skill in order to reach those levels of skill. This means skill points NOT allocated to other areas like knowledge skills, social skills, skill tricks, etc.
Slimgauge 09-27-07, 05:22 PM	And if the BBEG has 5 levels of knight for Vigilant Defender and Bulwark of Defense, it's hard for even a maxed out tumbler to do it without risk.
heffroncm 09-27-07, 06:54 PM	And if the BBEG has 5 levels of knight for Vigilant Defender and Bulwark of Defense, it's hard for even a maxed out tumbler to do it without risk. Or has taken Martial Stance: Thicket of Blades.
DMCuindless 09-28-07, 12:09 AM	And if the BBEG has 5 levels of knight for Vigilant Defender and Bulwark of Defense, it's hard for even a maxed out tumbler to do it without risk. Or has taken Martial Stance: Thicket of Blades. What do these abilities/feats do in relation to tumble? I may have reinvented the wheel.
Lilinthra 09-28-07, 08:18 AM	Knight Excerpt with descriptions of those abilities (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2) Manuever Cards Zip Archive for Devoted Spirit (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/tob2a.zip) The latter is probably debatable.
heffroncm 09-28-07, 08:35 AM	Manuever Cards Zip Archive for Devoted Spirit (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/tob2a.zip) The latter is probably debatable. "any opponent that takes any sort of movement" seems to be fairly clear.
Jhulae 09-28-07, 08:44 AM	I may be mistaken (so please correct me if I'm wrong) but I also believe that the RAW require a separate Tumble check for each opponent you try to tumble past, with the DC increasing by +2 each time. So, although a maxed out Tumbler is still going to make most of his tumble checks, he still has to do 6 checks to tumble past 6 opponents, meaning that he will still fairly often provoke at least 1 or 2 AoO's. i do think that all in all its a fair tradeoff. You're not wrong. And, the DC is also harder depending on the surface being tumbled across (something a lot of DMs forget to add). I really don't understand the mentality of a DM that feels the need to shaft their players for specializing in one area at the deficit to another.
Lilinthra 09-28-07, 02:32 PM	"any opponent that takes any sort of movement" seems to be fairly clear. The same could be said about the rules for Tumble checks. Since I don't feel like typing out my own arguments for both interpretations while at work, I'm just going to link to a thread that discusses both sides in some detail. Thicket of Blades vs. Tumble (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53142) I stand by my original assessment that the interpretation is debatable.
weasel0 09-29-07, 01:32 PM	My group uses a HR for Tumble. Roll your Tumble check to set a DC vs each enemies' Reflex save If they make the save, they get to take the AoO. If they fail, you slipped right past them before they could react. Modify for speed/terrain as normal, but not per enemy. This way it's not an all or nothing.
PenderGrass 09-29-07, 03:30 PM	I use the 3.0 variant of opposed tumble rolls. It's simple. It makes sense. My players love it since it is rare that a standard monster typically has tumble as a skill. :dragon: ****
Khadmus 09-30-07, 05:39 PM	What's wrong with Concentration?
Gemstone 10-01-07, 06:48 AM	From above 10th level, you rarely (if ever) fail a concentration check. A +13 to the skill only from ranks, makes it 15% likely for you to fail against a level 1 spell. And that's not counting con, skill bonuses etc.
Jhulae 10-01-07, 09:44 PM	From above 10th level, you rarely (if ever) fail a concentration check. A +13 to the skill only from ranks, makes it 15% likely for you to fail against a level 1 spell. And that's not counting con, skill bonuses etc. Specifically, when casting defensively. Get nailed with a good amount of damage (from a readied attack/spell/whatever or in the middle of a 1 round casting time spell) and the concentration check is not guaranteed at all.
Crusher217 10-01-07, 10:30 PM	Woh. When I posted it it never even came up on the boards. Sorry for the late response. This is just an idea I've been working on. I didn't plan on implementing it unless many people believe that it would be fairer, and I also didn't want to "shaft" the PC's who invested ranks in it. If anything I would've waited until after this campaign, but you guys do make some good points. I must have also misinterpreted the part about making several tumble checks, one for each enemy +2 after the first one. That seems much easier for me to work around. The main reason I despise tumble though is because all my PC's even the cleric put at least a rank to "unlock" the skill and for some reason they always easily exceed the 15 dc. Maybe it's luck, or maybe I should just make them roll for each enemy. Thanks for the responses. I don't plan on changing tumble anytime soon now. PS: I also never considered tumble overpowered or broken. I just thought it was way too easy to pass. I see my mistake now.
Gargs454 10-02-07, 06:04 PM	Woh. When I posted it it never even came up on the boards. Sorry for the late response. This is just an idea I've been working on. I didn't plan on implementing it unless many people believe that it would be fairer, and I also didn't want to "shaft" the PC's who invested ranks in it. If anything I would've waited until after this campaign, but you guys do make some good points. I must have also misinterpreted the part about making several tumble checks, one for each enemy +2 after the first one. That seems much easier for me to work around. The main reason I despise tumble though is because all my PC's even the cleric put at least a rank to "unlock" the skill and for some reason they always easily exceed the 15 dc. Maybe it's luck, or maybe I should just make them roll for each enemy. Thanks for the responses. I don't plan on changing tumble anytime soon now. PS: I also never considered tumble overpowered or broken. I just thought it was way too easy to pass. I see my mistake now. I also believe that Tumble has armor check penalties, so if your clerics, paladins, and fighters are trying to tumble in plate mail that should make it significantly more difficult. At any rate, in my games, I usually find that the rogues and monks will almost always tumble past their opponents and the rest of my players do not usually attempt it very often. The casters tend to stand back far enough that tumble checks are not usually considered. The fighters are perhaps the ones who could most benefit from a few ranks, but usually they prefer to just try to walk around out of harm's way at full speed. /shrug
Jhulae 10-03-07, 12:55 AM	I also believe that Tumble has armor check penalties, so if your clerics, paladins, and fighters are trying to tumble in plate mail that should make it significantly more difficult. Tumble *is* affected by Armor Check penalties. I'll be quite honest in that I usually end up giving most of my characters, even wizards and heavily armored characters, 5 ranks of tumble. Not to avoid AoOs, but for the bonus to defense. That's much more important to me.
Some_call_me_Tim 10-03-07, 11:32 AM	I also believe that Tumble has armor check penalties, so if your clerics, paladins, and fighters are trying to tumble in plate mail that should make it significantly more difficult.Try impossible unless they are dwarves. Tumble (Dex; Trained Only; Armor Check Penalty) You can’t use this skill if your speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot. So, unless Crusher's PC are all wearing light or no armor or are dwarves they shouldn't be tumbling anywhere.
perdera 10-03-07, 05:34 PM	Yeah, sometimes Tumble is annoying...but it's the realm of the light-armored mobile character...that's their thing. Make sure you're using it correctly: usually no Tumbling in Medium or Heavy Armor (exceptions noted in a previous post), +2 to the DC for each AoO you're trying to avoid, additional DC modifiers depending on surface, armor check penalties, etc. I also apply penalties depending on other things in your hand. It pretty much correlates to the armor check penalties on equivalent sized shields: light weapons, wands, potions, etc are -1 like a Light Shield. Medium weapons are -2 like a Heavy Shield. Two-Handed weapons are -10 like a Tower Shield (awww, no Tumbling Greatsword wielding Rogue...I'm so sad...). I've houseruled likewise with Concentration--which has a similarly annoying way of letting you ignore the 8 bad guys surrounding you--each opponent that threatens you, after the first, adds +2 to the DC of your Concentration check to Cast Defensively. Just like Tumbling past 8 people is harder than Tumbling past 1, Concentrating amidst 8 people is harder than Concentrating against 1. I think the above makes the skills scale in a much more (fantasy) realistic way.
heffroncm 10-03-07, 07:19 PM	Two-Handed weapons are -10 like a Tower Shield (awww, no Tumbling Greatsword wielding Rogue...I'm so sad...). I agree with all of the above except this. You can take your hand off your Greatsword and put it back as a free action, hence the Greatsword wielding spellcasting gishes out there.
Mock26 10-03-07, 10:25 PM	I really don't understand the mentality of a DM that feels the need to shaft their players for specializing in one area at the deficit to another. I honestly don't think that there are a lot of DM's out there who get a kick out of shafting their players. To me when these topics come up it is usually because one player has over specialized and that over specialization throws the game out of balance and the DM is merely trying to rebalance that game so that everyone is on relatively equal footing. For some DM's it can be very difficult to run a game when one player is far superior to everyone else. But, that is just my opinion based on my experiences.
perdera 10-04-07, 11:15 AM	I agree with all of the above except this. You can take your hand off your Greatsword and put it back as a free action, hence the Greatsword wielding spellcasting gishes out there. In the case of the two-handed weapons it's more a matter of it just getting in your way as you try to tumble...some (not very thorough) googling shows medieval greatswords were up to almost 8-feet in length, though the average looks like just under 7-feet--that's still taller than most PCs.
heffroncm 10-04-07, 11:35 AM	In the case of the two-handed weapons it's more a matter of it just getting in your way as you try to tumble...some (not very thorough) googling shows medieval greatswords were up to almost 8-feet in length, though the average looks like just under 7-feet--that's still taller than most PCs. I agree that you need to work to get them out of the way. I don't agree that it takes a -10. -4 perhaps. Tumbles, rolls, and flips with 2-handed weaponry are common in many martial art forms.
Gargs454 10-04-07, 11:43 AM	Try impossible unless they are dwarves. Tumble (Dex; Trained Only; Armor Check Penalty) You can’t use this skill if your speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot. So, unless Crusher's PC are all wearing light or no armor or are dwarves they shouldn't be tumbling anywhere. Bah! This is what I get for taking 10 on my search check. :p Thanks for the catch.
perdera 10-04-07, 02:21 PM	I agree that you need to work to get them out of the way. I don't agree that it takes a -10. -4 perhaps. Tumbles, rolls, and flips with 2-handed weaponry are common in many martial art forms. Sounds like a fun Feat or Prestige Class. What I've houseruled doesn't have to make perfect sense, it's a change I made as a little bump for Monks, pretty much elevating them as the masters of Tumbling (when they're empty-handed of course, which they usually are, at least 'round my table).
Khadmus 10-07-07, 12:51 PM	Tumble *is* affected by Armor Check penalties. I'll be quite honest in that I usually end up giving most of my characters, even wizards and heavily armored characters, 5 ranks of tumble. Not to avoid AoOs, but for the bonus to defense. That's much more important to me. Your wizards fight defensively?
heffroncm 10-07-07, 09:43 PM	Your wizards fight defensively? When would a Wizard, thinking tactically, ever not take a penalty to Attack rolls for a bonus to AC? You're not throwing spells every single round, and a lot of spells recquire Touch Attacks.
Marcus Majarra 10-07-07, 11:55 PM	Because fighting defensively can only be done when taking the standard attack or full-attack actions. Casting a spell is neither, regardless of the attack rolls required with certain spells.
Jhulae 10-08-07, 12:05 AM	Because fighting defensively can only be done when taking the standard attack or full-attack actions. Casting a spell is neither, regardless of the attack rolls required with certain spells. Unless you cast a touch spell on one round, and then attack with it on the next. Now, it is an attack action. Also, there are times when a wizard is out of spells and/or has nothing that can be added to the combat and she'd rather take a full defense then just stand around getting attacked at range. (Especially when the enemies have determined that a caster is dangerous and needs to be eliminated.)
Khadmus 10-08-07, 09:39 AM	Unless you cast a touch spell on one round, and then attack with it on the next. Now, it is an attack action. Also, there are times when a wizard is out of spells and/or has nothing that can be added to the combat and she'd rather take a full defense then just stand around getting attacked at range. (Especially when the enemies have determined that a caster is dangerous and needs to be eliminated.) Wizards can run 120' per round. 80' per round if encumbered. But your touch spell point is valid.
Marcus Majarra 10-08-07, 01:18 PM	Unless you cast a touch spell on one round, and then attack with it on the next. Now, it is an attack action. Well, obviously. Either way, this sort of decision is not tactically sound if you're not at some distance (i.e. beyond attack) from your opponent to begin with.
Jhulae 10-09-07, 12:33 AM	Well, obviously. Either way, this sort of decision is not tactically sound if you're not at some distance (i.e. beyond attack) from your opponent to begin with. True, but sometimes it's impossible to always be beyond the reach of your opponent (especially things such as demons and devils with their free teleports), or against things that just move very quickly. Or against things that are very accurate and have a long range with their ranged attacks (like giants). The fact is, there are many situations where being able to take a full defense and get +6 to your AC is helpful. Plus, even for fighters, clerics, or other heavily armored characters who can't tumble while wearing armor, they can benefit from the bonus to AC all the time they fight defensively or use a full defense. True, it's not better than Expertise, but it doesn't cost a feat that a character may want for something else (such as to get into a prestige class or whatever).
Marcus Majarra 10-09-07, 01:08 AM	The good thing, though: Combat Expertise and fighting defensively stack. This is actually a better combination than full defense with 5+ ranks in Tumble (+8 AC and a chance to attack vs. +6 AC and no attack).
Jhulae 10-09-07, 01:29 AM	The good thing, though: Combat Expertise and fighting defensively stack. This is actually a better combination than full defense with 5+ ranks in Tumble (+8 AC and a chance to attack vs. +6 AC and no attack). Also a true point. :)
perdera 10-09-07, 05:37 PM	Plus, even for fighters, clerics, or other heavily armored characters who can't tumble while wearing armor, they can benefit from the bonus to AC all the time they fight defensively or use a full defense. True, it's not better than Expertise, but it doesn't cost a feat that a character may want for something else (such as to get into a prestige class or whatever). I disagree with this interpretation. You can’t use this skill if your speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot. They cannot use the skill under the above circumstances. Gaining a circumstantial bonus to defense via this skill counts as 'using' the skill in my book. Although by RAW you appear correct--'if X ranks then Y bonus'--but I don't feel that's the spirit of the restriction I quoted above.
Jhulae 10-10-07, 12:34 AM	Gaining a circumstantial bonus to defense via this skill counts as 'using' the skill in my book. Although by RAW you appear correct--'if X ranks then Y bonus'--but I don't feel that's the spirit of the restriction I quoted above. I can see your point, but, as you also point out, that is not the way the skill is written. If the skill said you had to make a DC 10 tumble check to gain the bonus, then you would be absolutely correct. In the way it's written, it's very along the lines of a synergy bonus. No skill requries you to use said skill to gain a synergy with other skills (such as Handle Animal providing a bonus to Ride). The purpose is that you know something well enough that it provides other benefits, such in this case, tumble providing the bonus of more defense. In this particular case, the way I view it is 'rolling' with a blow. While armor is flexible, I can see it restricting tumbling movement (because of the greater distances involved), but I do not see it hindering someone from twisting and turning (obviously not flipping and such) their body in a fight. If armor was *that* restrictive, the wearer should be taking penalties on attacks and any Dex based skills (like Ride) as well.