Post/Author/DateTime	Post
His Majesty 02-27-04, 04:57 AM	I've noticed that if you're sing the rules for facing, a rogue wit tumble can almost always get his sneak attack. All he has to do is tumble to the other side (behind the creature) and... +5d6 damage. I know that a creature can turn around outside of turn at certain conditions. This might solve the problem sometimes, but if the rogue is teamed up with someone else... the creature has to choose whether to let the rogue sneak attack him or let the fighter flank him. That spells out big trouble for single monsters. Does anyone have an idea for how this can be negated? Thanks,
Zaebos 02-27-04, 05:04 AM	2 things come to mind. 1) Make tumble a standard action 2) In Song and Silence there is a variant rule on tumble, on page 37, Tougher Tumble Checks. In that variant it has a way for you to have Opposed Tumble Check, where the target gets a reflex save (dc = tumble check). If Successful, target(s) get their AoO. If tumbling through a square, the target gets +10 to the reflex save.
Xeviat-DM 02-27-04, 02:43 PM	A rogue with Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, and sufficient ranks in Bluff can do the same. Oh well, right? I don't like this hole in the varient because it allows a rogue to do the same without a feat, but it does take until the rogue has a 14 modifier in tumble (which could take till 6th level or higher).
Malchior 03-04-04, 12:47 PM	Why shouldn't the rogue have the option to tumble past and get a sneak attack? He's a rogue... that's what they do. :-) If you want, allow the victim a Ref save vs the result of the rogue's Tumble check. if he beats it, he can change facing in time. If he has to choose between facing the rogue of facing the fighter on the opposite side, tough luck. That's what a battle is, baby, you have to make tactical decisions that aren't always enviable.
danielinthewolvesden 03-04-04, 07:07 PM	The one great thing about 3.5 is that it had almost got rid of the last aspects of "facing". Now this!:rolleyes:
flyingmoose 03-04-04, 10:48 PM	It's just an option. No facing is plenty realistic enough for me. 'Course I've never been in a real fight with more than one person, so what do I know.
Xeviat-DM 03-05-04, 05:07 AM	You know what I'd do if I end up using facing in my new campaign? Simply allow the once a round free action turn to be performed on anyone's action, not just your own. Additionally, I have two new feat adendums: Dodge: The dodge feat allows you to select a single opponent that you gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC against attacks from. Additionally, you treat this opponent as if he were attacking from your face at all times, even if this opponent were attacking from the rear. (this is because you're actively monitoring that creature, and thus you gain better defense against it). and Two Weapon Fighting: In addition to the PHB bonuses, two weapon fighting allows you to make attacks into your flank area at no penalty, although you may only attack with the approprate weapon into your flank (right hand into right flank, left weapon into left flank). (I believe this would adiquately represent one of the reasonings for using two weapon fighting, to be able to adiquately defend attack multiple people. I'd consider it also removing the -2 AC penalty against attacks in your flank, but that may be too powerful).
igronimus 03-05-04, 01:09 PM	To actually tumble past somebody is a DC25, so it's not that easy of a maneuver. Additionally, the rogue can only make a single attack after he tumbles, rather than a full-round action. On the other hand, if a rogue and another had an opponent in a flanking situation, the opponent can merely face the rogue. The rogue would then be denied the ability to full attack for multiple sneak attacks. The only choice he would possibly have is to tumble past the guy and take a single sneak attack. It's hard to argue that the small benefit gained outweights the loss of the latter. I think overall, the facing rules greatly weaken the rogue, while giving the rogue additional options in single combat situations. The one thing I initially did not like about 3.0 as well as 3.5 was the removal of any form of facing. It didn't make much sense to me and brought about some really stupid situations, such as the 1 man with a tower shield being able to have full cover while surrounded by archers. I'm glad they introduced some suitable rules to bring it back.
Xeviat-DM 03-05-04, 03:55 PM	Actually, a medium sized rogue would be able to do it with a DC 15 tumble check. Watch: FFF SCS BBB Here's our friendly enemy. F1F SC2 B3B 1, 2, and 3 are the positions the rogue starts, moves to, and ends in on his turn. This is a 15 ft. manuver, half of the top speed of a medium sized rogue. This is just a simple DC 15 manuver, unless there are other characters threatening the rogue at the time. Have fun.
igronimus 03-06-04, 10:30 AM	Originally posted by Xeviat-DM Actually, a medium sized rogue would be able to do it with a DC 15 tumble check. Watch: FFF SCS BBB Here's our friendly enemy. F1F SC2 B3B 1, 2, and 3 are the positions the rogue starts, moves to, and ends in on his turn. This is a 15 ft. manuver, half of the top speed of a medium sized rogue. This is just a simple DC 15 manuver, unless there are other characters threatening the rogue at the time. Have fun. True, but wouldn't you sooner have fighter Bob behind the guy and get to sneak attack with your whole full attack sequence?
His Majesty 03-06-04, 11:20 AM	True, but wouldn't you sooner have fighter Bob behind the guy and get to sneak attack with your whole full attack sequence? Nope. In the facing system flanking is standing behind someone. having two people at opposite sides doesn't incur any penalty, but since they will both be on your side/one of them will be behind you, it is still a disadvantage to the defender. I did refer to the maneuver Xeviat-DM described, which is a simple one for most tumble focused rogues (At 2nd level 5 ranks + 3 dex + 2 synergy with jump = +10, and that's without skill focus/the athletic feat/a racial bonus/a truly high dex). Solving this by making tumble an opposed check is simple & easy, but I was asking whether there are other solutions. Why shouldn't the rogue have the option to tumble past and get a sneak attack? He's a rogue... that's what they do. :) Because at 1st-7th level (and actually at higher levels too, since a second attack at a BAB lower by 5 is worth less than one attack at a +4 bonus that deals bonus sneak attack damage) a rogue will almost certainly deal +1-4d6 damage, and that is certainly unbalanced. Better then a fighter at certain circumstances. He should work for those bonus damage dice.
igronimus 03-06-04, 11:41 AM	At low levels it may be better since you only have 1 attack anyways, but once a rogue gets multiple attacks, it puts the rogue at a severe disadvantage because in many cases where the rogue could get a full attack worth of sneak attacks, he would instead have to tumble and take a single attack. If you couple that with TWF, the rogue is really at a severe disadvantage. The amount of damage a high level rogue with TWF can dish out if they have flanking is insane. With facing, they'd be stuck tumbling around and single attacking against a relatively smart opponent who continually faces the rogue.
Xeviat-DM 03-06-04, 02:45 PM	Originally posted by igronimus If you couple that with TWF, the rogue is really at a severe disadvantage. The amount of damage a high level rogue with TWF can dish out if they have flanking is insane. With facing, they'd be stuck tumbling around and single attacking against a relatively smart opponent who continually faces the rogue. ... and gets power attacked by the fighter to his rear then. Putting anyone at your back his bad business.