Tumble

[hivedragon]

I don't like how tumble works by RAW. How about you roll d20+dexmod+ranks in tumble-10 and add the result to your AC as you move past monsters.

[myancey]

I don't like how tumble works by RAW. How about you roll d20+dexmod+ranks in tumble-10 and add the result to your AC as you move past monsters.

Because then you take a skill that already has optimal use and break it into severely abused pieces. Why would you move using anything but tumble?

[hivedragon]

Because then you take a skill that already has optimal use and break it into severely abused pieces.

I don't understand what you mean. If anything I am making tumble less broken.


Why would you move using anything but tumble?

because you have to tumble at half your speed and you can't tumble in medium or heavy armor.

[myancey]

I don't understand what you mean. If anything I am making tumble less broken.

First off, you would be adding your Dex mod twice.


d20+dexmod+ranks in tumble-10 and add the result to your AC The "dexmod" and remainder of AC account for the two of those.

Secondly, the net result of your proposed check simply adds your AC to the result of the original skill roll, -10 of course. But AC normally adds 10, so your proposed roll comes out as Skill roll + AC modifier. AC Modifier is defined as AC - 10. That creates a powerful result for overcoming the DCs listed in the various entries of the tumble skill.

The way your check is written, it seems as though anyone would get the opportunity to attack if the tumbler moved past. It's likely that only a natural 20 would land with the way the check is written.




because you have to tumble at half your speed and you can't tumble in medium or heavy armor.

But everyone not wearing those two forms of armor (so at least half of the classes offered in 3.5) would be. And mithril would help with that too.

And you can move at your full speed. This is from SRD:


Accelerated Tumbling

You try to tumble past or through enemies more quickly than normal. By accepting a -10 penalty on your Tumble checks, you can move at your full speed instead of one-half your speed.

[theForce017]

I agree with myancey, tumble is not a broken skill but if you were to add it to your AC then yea it would be too useful and everyone that doesn't have a ridiculous AC due to medium/heavy armor would be using it. Not only this but if your just trying to get past a bad guy without the attack of opportunity, their are other ways around this (armband of elusive action MIC) Your dex is included in your AC for this reason. If you are a Dexterous character then you will be harder to hit due to the fact your AC includes dex.

[Ivellius]

Yeah...this actually makes Tumble even better.

As a side note, dwarves can tumble no matter what they're wearing or carrying. I really ought to make a tumbling full-plate wearing dwarf sometime.

[hivedragon]

Okay I think I'm misinterpreting something. As I understand it, if I roll 15 or higher I am immune to attacks of oportunity. My way the enemies can actually make attacks of oportunity against me.

[King Atticus]

As a side note, dwarves can tumble no matter what they're wearing or carrying. I really ought to make a tumbling full-plate wearing dwarf sometime.

Where's this come from? Because it may be the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. Man, I love tumbling characters.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Okay I think I'm misinterpreting something. As I understand it, if I roll 15 or higher I am immune to attacks of oportunity. My way the enemies can actually make attacks of oportunity against me.

It basically does the same thing, as the average roll of ten cancels out the penalty, effectively giving you an AC bonus equal to your tumble modifier, and it works against all attacks that round, not AoOs.

[myancey]

Okay I think I'm misinterpreting something. As I understand it, if I roll 15 or higher I am immune to attacks of oportunity. My way the enemies can actually make attacks of oportunity against me.

You're not immune. You make a check--if you fail, then you provoke an AoO. SRD says that in this line:


Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally.

Also, you make rolls for each person you move past separately, as stated in SRD here:


Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie).

It is certainly not broken. Tumble needs no nerfs, and no bonuses.


Where's this come from? Because it may be the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. Man, I love tumbling characters.

Yeah, I pretty much wanna do that too.

[Glimbur]

Where's this come from? Because it may be the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. Man, I love tumbling characters.

You can't tumble if your speed is reduced by your armor or encumbrance. Dwarves are not slowed down by armor. Therefore... tumbling in full plate.

[King Atticus]

You can't tumble if your speed is reduced by your armor or encumbrance. Dwarves are not slowed down by armor. Therefore... tumbling in full plate.

That...is...so...glorious.

[tyckspoon]

You can't tumble if your speed is reduced by your armor or encumbrance. Dwarves are not slowed down by armor. Therefore... tumbling in full plate.

Still affected by Armor Check Penalty, naturally, but that's a fairly minor obstacle.

[Douglas]

I think there's a major misinterpretation going on here - the OP is not suggesting to have Tumble add to AC for all purposes, but rather to have it add to AC specifically vs movement-based AoOs. This is almost a straight up nerf, as enemies do at least get to roll their attacks rather than being denied the chance entirely.

[FMArthur]

Why not just Tumble versus their attack bonus, or just adopt the Tumble vs CMD that Pathfinder uses? A Tumble roll versus a bunch of flat DCs is much, much better for gameflow than what amounts to an opposed roll from everyone you pass.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think there's a major misinterpretation going on here - the OP is not suggesting to have Tumble add to AC for all purposes, but rather to have it add to AC specifically vs movement-based AoOs. This is almost a straight up nerf, as enemies do at least get to roll their attacks rather than being denied the chance entirely.

But he didn't make it clear in the text. He just said to add it to AC.

Besides, we've moved on, we're now discussing full plate wearing dwarves who do backflips.

[Douglas]

But he didn't make it clear in the text. He just said to add it to AC.
Add to AC "as you move past monsters." To me, that seems pretty clear that it's specifically for the attacks related to the mentioned movement.

[myancey]

Add to AC "as you move past monsters." To me, that seems pretty clear that it's specifically for the attacks related to the mentioned movement.

I disagree. As Swiftmongoose says, he didn't make it clear...at all. He could have meant any number of things with what he was trying to say. He wasn't exactly clear on the details. Plus...more than one person read it as saying the same, convoluted thing I thought it was saying.


Why not just Tumble versus their attack bonus, or just adopt the Tumble vs CMD that Pathfinder uses? A Tumble roll versus a bunch of flat DCs is much, much better for gameflow than what amounts to an opposed roll from everyone you pass.

Truth.



Besides, we've moved on, we're now discussing full plate wearing dwarves who do backflips.

Which is basically the coolest thing ever. Scottish accents (at least in Salvatore's books) and back flips make for wicked NPCs...or players.

[Kosjsjach]

I think I really like the idea of Tumble vs the enemy attack bonus. Is there anything I'm missing that makes this unfair or non-viable?

(Also, tumbling fullplate dwarves are indeed cool.)

[myancey]

I think I really like the idea of Tumble vs the enemy attack bonus. Is there anything I'm missing that makes this unfair or non-viable?

(Also, tumbling fullplate dwarves are indeed cool.)

It's not necessarily a bad thing. It is in the method listed above that I take issue. It's in trying to combine a skill with AC, two items begging for people to break them. Yes, a natural 20 would still succeed on making a regular attack--obviously missing the critical confirm.

Another point mentioned was that it would slow down the game progress. The current skill roll has you attempting to make a set DC as you try and pass people. This means you roll 5 15's. Otherwise, you'd need to compare rolls to the attackers, slowing the game down.

[Gan The Grey]

I just have each additional attacker beyond the first increase the DC by 2. Simple and elegant.

[myancey]

I just have each additional attacker beyond the first increase the DC by 2. Simple and elegant.

Yeah, that's a basic SRD rule for tumble as well.


Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie). Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.

[Gan The Grey]

Yeah, that's a basic SRD rule for tumble as well.

See? I'm not the only one who thought it was a good idea.

Edited for clarity.

[supermonkeyjoe]

I have a glorious image of a spiked fullplate wearing dwarf who curls himself into an armoured ball and rolls around the battlefield exclusively using tumble, bull rush and overrun

[Eloel]

I have a glorious image of a spiked fullplate wearing dwarf who curls himself into an armoured ball and rolls around the battlefield exclusively using tumble, bull rush and overrun

Are there blue dwarves? Or can we please paint the fullplate blue?

[Gwendol]

However, it is easy enough to gain enough skill in Tumble to not have to roll for passing the DC. On the other hand, is it such a bad thing that some, mostly low-to medium HD classes can move around the battlefield ignoring AoO's?
The skill is hardly broken as is.

[Curmudgeon]

I think I really like the idea of Tumble vs the enemy attack bonus. Is there anything I'm missing that makes this unfair or non-viable?
Yeah, you just changed a basic mechanic from something you know how to do, to a risk. Now, if you wanted to also make any spell fail unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check higher than any enemy attack bonus in the spell's range, that might make for an equitable set of changes. Tumble is a skill that my Rogues use more than Tier 1 classes use spellcasting. Having spellcasters not know in advance if they'll be able to cast successfully might add some much-needed challenge to the most powerful characters.

Is making Tumble risky going to increase the fun of the game for players? :smallannoyed:

[FMArthur]

If you use enemies that know how to tumble and prioritize their targets in battle, and you play with players interested in performing an actual 'tank' role, then yes. There are only two classes in the whole game who are actually capable of preventing enemies from just rolling past them to punch the squishies - such as your casters, a plot escort, or your pack mules - and that's a problem.

Paladin Nobly McJust shouts "never fear, fair maiden: stand behind me I shall protect you.", and Assassin Meany McJerk just stifles some laughter, says "nope", and strolls on by to stab her in the face. Maybe he should have been a Crusader or a Knight. Or maybe he shouldn't have to do that at all to be able to protect anyone.

[NNescio]

I have a glorious image of a spiked fullplate wearing dwarf who curls himself into an armoured ball and rolls around the battlefield exclusively using tumble, bull rush and overrun

Thibbledorf Pwent?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Thibbledorf Pwent?

No, he charges with his helmet spike and uses his spiked gauntlets and armor in grappling.

[Keld Denar]

There are only two classes in the whole game who are actually capable of preventing enemies from just rolling past them to punch the squishies

Actually, in the case you described, its just one. Knight's Bulwark of Defense only comes into play if the foe starts their turn threatened by the knight. If they start their turn outside of his threatened area, they can then tumble through his threatened squares unhindered, shank yon fair maiden, and dim door away gleefully. Only Thicket of Blades is effective at stopping foes from getting past you.

[Curmudgeon]

Only Thicket of Blades is effective at stopping foes from getting past you.
Actually, it isn't; Tumble still works just fine.

Both Tumble and Thicket of Blades state things absolutely: that movement doesn't provoke AoOs or does provoke, respectively. So that's an obvious disagreement. Luckily, WotC provided a handy system for resolving these disagreements.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Tumble wins. (And here we have yet another example of how the FAQ isn't a reliable rules reference.)

[Veyr]

Seems to me that Thicket of Blades is a specific exception to the Tumble rules.

[Keld Denar]

Debatable, additional rules sources expand the rules, and often include things that contradict the base rules. If a new source contradicts an old source, could it possibly be because it is changing the rules or provides a specific exception to a given existing rule? ToB is the primary source on what Thicket of Blades does and doesn't do. If it changes how the tumble skill works WRT itself, then those changes take precedent.

That would be like saying that a Bloodclaw Master who's reached 1st level still only gets 1/2 +str on his offhand weapon because the PHB states that whenever a character makes an attack with an offhand weapon that weapon only benefits from 1/2 +str. Its a rule that DIRECTLY contradicts the PHB, and supercede's a general rule. No, Bloodclaw Mastery is the primary source on Bloodclaw Master abilities, and Thicket of Blades is the primary source on Thicket of Blades.

But thats probably a bridge to burn on another day in another thread.

[Curmudgeon]

Seems to me that Thicket of Blades is a specific exception to the Tumble rules.
If it said it was an exception to Tumble, it would be. However, Thicket of Blades only mentions 5' steps and the withdraw maneuver, and doesn't except Tumble.

[Veyr]

While you are in this stance, any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement [...] provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
Is Tumble a form of movement? Yes. It provokes. End of story. It does not need to list Tumble explicitly; it explicitly gives 5 ft. stepping as an example. Generally Tumbling avoids provoking. Thicket of Blades specifically causes all forms of movement to provoke.

Withdraw requires a specific mention, because it works differently (it says you no longer threaten that square), but Tumble does not. You are wrong.

[Curmudgeon]

Is Tumble a form of movement? Yes. It provokes. End of story. It does not need to list Tumble explicitly; it explicitly gives 5 ft. stepping as an example. Generally Tumbling avoids provoking. Thicket of Blades specifically causes all forms of movement to provoke.
... You are wrong.

Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.
A successful Tumble check specifically guarantees that your movement does not to provoke. Which means there's a basic disagreement here between the Player's Handbook and Tome of Battle. I've already cited the full text of the rule which decides such disagreements. Failing to follow that rule has put you on the wrong side of the RAW, instead. :smallsigh:

[Keld Denar]

According to your logic, we have:


Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons
Light
A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.
Emphasis mine.

We also have:

Claws of the Beast (Ex): When attacking with two daggers or Tiger Claw weapons (kukri, kama, handaxe, unarmed strike, or claws), you add your full Strength bonus to damage rolls made for your off-hand weapon.

So, we have one rule that say you only get half +Str, and we have one rule that says that when you have this ability, you get full +Str. Its a rule in ToB that contradicts the PHB. According to your reading of Primary Source, a Bloodclaw Master is still bound by the rules in the PHB, and thus only gets half +Str to damage regardless of what other abilities he has. This is the same as your interpretation that Thicket of Blades doesn't counter the Tumble rules, and both interpretations are wrong. A rule stands until another rule creates an exception. The PHB doesn't magically update itself to reflect all of the exceptions to it printed in all of the various sourcebooks. Instead, each specific exception reflects back on the PHB. If Thicket of Blades says that ALL movement provokes, then all movement provokes, 5' steps, tumbles, and withdraw actions oh my.

[Veyr]

A successful Tumble check specifically guarantees that your movement does not to provoke. Which means there's a basic disagreement here between the Player's Handbook and Tome of Battle. I've already cited the full text of the rule which decides such disagreements. Failing to follow that rule has put you on the wrong side of the RAW, instead. :smallsigh:
No, because Thicket of Blades is more specific than the general rule about Tumble.

"Specific" does not mean "explicitly mentioned", it means "the more unusual case". Tumbling being a provocation-less form of movement is the general rule.

[Curmudgeon]

So, we have one rule that say you only get half +Str, and we have one rule that says that when you have this ability, you get full +Str. Its a rule in ToB that contradicts the PHB.
You've provided an example of rules at different levels of hierarchy: one applies generally to weapon attacks, and one is specific to a class feature, exactly as the Monk's unarmed damage (also a light weapon) is covered by a similar specific rule. I recommend reading page 5 of Rules Compendium on this matter: "ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION", if you're confusing these different levels of hierarchy.

No, because Thicket of Blades is more specific than the general rule about Tumble.

"Specific" does not mean "explicitly mentioned", it means "the more unusual case". Tumbling being a provocation-less form of movement is the general rule.
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions from, but specific (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specific) means "having a special application". The use of Tumble to avoid AoOs from movement is not a general rule; it's a special application of one of many skills in the game. You can't automatically use Tumble to try to avoid AoOs; you must first train in that skill. You can't automatically use Thicket of Blades to try to make movement provoke AoOs; you must first learn that stance. Even if you've learned to Tumble avoiding AoOs doesn't happen generally; you've got to make a skill check. Even if you know Thicket of Blades it doesn't automatically cause movement to provoke AoOs; you've got to initiate the stance. There are comparable numbers of D&D stances and skills, and these are both at the same level of hierarchy: specific rules. The next level of detail along the rules hierarchy is an exception, and Thicket of Blades does provide two exceptions: for 5' steps and withdraw. It does not make an exception for Tumble.

At the same level of hierarchy (specific rule vs. specific rule) we've got a disagreement (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disagreement): two absolute statements which are in conflict. You follow the rule for deciding disagreements, which says the Player's Handbook rule is correct.

[MeeposFire]

Actually, in the case you described, its just one. Knight's Bulwark of Defense only comes into play if the foe starts their turn threatened by the knight. If they start their turn outside of his threatened area, they can then tumble through his threatened squares unhindered, shank yon fair maiden, and dim door away gleefully. Only Thicket of Blades is effective at stopping foes from getting past you.

And he forgot the fighter which uses the crusader stance but adds a lot more if you want to specialize in the lockdown role. Yea it is a crusader stance but it is a fighter bonus feat as well so it is also a fighter thing.

[Veyr]

At the same level of hierarchy (specific rule vs. specific rule)
This is where you go wrong.

There are levels of specificity here. The two rules are not equally specific.

Yes, Tumble is a specific rule that trumps the general rule that movement usually provokes. Thicket of Blades is a specific rule that trumps the general rule that there exist some forms of movement that do not provoke.

Thicket of Blades trumps Tumble which in turn trumps the usual Movement rules.

[Keld Denar]

Also, examples aren't completely inclusive. "Such as X" means that X and things that are similar to X are included. 5' steps are normal exceptions to the movement AoO rules, and are included explicitly. Tumbling is a similar exception to the movement AoO rules, similar to a 5' step in that it doesn't provoke, and thus is included in the exemption level implicitly.

And that's even assuming that Veyr isn't right about there being differing stratiations of specific rules.

[Curmudgeon]

There are levels of specificity here.
Yes, there are exactly two levels more specific than general rules: specific rules and exceptions. Rules Compendium says:
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. ... not "general to specific to more specific to exception". It's a short section on page 5 of the book, and I encourage you to read it carefully when you get a chance.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yes, there are exactly two levels more specific than general rules: specific rules and exceptions. Rules Compendium says: ... not "general to specific to more specific to exception". It's a short section on page 5 of the book, and I encourage you to read it carefully when you get a chance.

More specific is exception. Because the tumble rules don't normally have movement provoke, thicket of blades is the exception.

[olentu]

More specific is exception. Because the tumble rules don't normally have movement provoke, thicket of blades is the exception.

Actually they are both exceptions.

[Keld Denar]

And this is why I suggested we not get into this...nobody is gonna convince anyone.

[Greenish]

On the other hand, is it such a bad thing that some, mostly low-to medium HD classes can move around the battlefield ignoring AoO's?I can't think of any d12 HD class that couldn't have Tumble as a class skill.


YI recommend reading page 5 of Rules Compendium on this matter: "ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION", if you're confusing these different levels of hierarchy.Technically, Rules Compendium isn't RAW, I have been given to understand. :smalltongue:


And he forgot the fighter which uses the crusader stance but adds a lot more if you want to specialize in the lockdown role. Yea it is a crusader stance but it is a fighter bonus feat as well so it is also a fighter thing.Yeah, a fighter can get it at level 10 by burning two feats. Of course, by then, the crusader will have all relevant feats for a lockdown build, too.

If you want to specialize in lockdown, you might take two levels of fighter on your crusader for the extra feats, but if you had to choose between the two, you'd be better off with crusader.

[Fuhrmaaj]

Regardless of whether or not Thicket of Blades works against Tumble, I think everyone should realize that Tumble is ridiculous as written. I rewrote how Tumble works the first time I DMed a Dervish (for obvious reasons). This was before Pathfinder, but I think it works the same as Tumble check vs taking ten on an attack roll.

So my house rule is make your Tumble check and set the DC to 10 + opponent's attack bonus + 2 per additional that has been tumbled by this turn. Now that Pathfinder is out, I think CMD is probably better because Tumble and AC are probably going to be fairly different.

The problem with Tumble is that you think that only dextrous types can use it, but that's not true. Anyone (and their grandma) can either wear light armour or figure out how to not be encumbered if they're running around in melee. When the wizards and whatnot are using it, then you'll be groaning. Putting one rank in Tumble qualifies you as being trained, then you add your Dex bonus and other junk you want. Assuming you can reliably hit DC 15, you won't ever suffer and AoO again. I think it's a popular recommendation to put 5 ranks in Tumble at some point in your career for synergy bonuses and whatnot.

My biggest gripe with the 3.5 system is the lack of opposed checks. Another classic example is Concentration which has a DC 15 + spell level in order to cast defensively (no AoO while casting). This means that the check actually becomes easier as you level up because you get 2 skill ranks each time you get a new spell level. Again, I think Concentration vs CMD + spell level would be more appropriate.

I've been using the Tumble house rule for years and everyone loves it (including the Dervish character). I would recommend it to anyone. The extra bonus is seeing people actually trying to optimize those skills (putting the minimum amount of ranks in to get the job done, then spend the ranks elsewhere). Additionally, characters who optimize AoOs (like chain trippers) will have to optimize CMD in order to stop tumbling jerks who want to murder damsels.

[Curmudgeon]

More specific is exception. Because the tumble rules don't normally have movement provoke, thicket of blades is the exception.
You should check again, actually, because many Tumble uses provoke AoOs. Standing up from prone as a free action (DC 35) provokes. You can use Tumble to treat a fall as if it were a shorter distance dropped, but you still generate AoOs when you fall past enemies. It's only some specific uses of Tumble that provide an exception to movement provoking AoOs.

Thicket of Blades, on the other hand, doesn't offer any more specific options.

[ffone]

+1 on 'Tumble isn't overridden by Thicket' for Curm's reasons.

Re OP, one precedent examppe for skill vs attack is Mounted Combat. If you do this houserule, consider copying that (use higher of AC and skill check) . Unfortunately this is a serious nerf (high CR beatsticks have insane attack mods). Maybe +10 to the tumbler. Mounted Combat is unique b/c mount pets tend to have terrible AC and investing WBL in it would be inefficient.

I do like the idea that a more skilled attacker is harder to tumble around, but since tumble is crucial to rogues (they often need to move for flanking or Hide (in plain sight) and are Ssquishy) IMO the nerf should be minimal and for this 'attacker skill matters' token flavor.

[olentu]

Regardless of whether or not Thicket of Blades works against Tumble, I think everyone should realize that Tumble is ridiculous as written. I rewrote how Tumble works the first time I DMed a Dervish (for obvious reasons). This was before Pathfinder, but I think it works the same as Tumble check vs taking ten on an attack roll.

So my house rule is make your Tumble check and set the DC to 10 + opponent's attack bonus + 2 per additional that has been tumbled by this turn. Now that Pathfinder is out, I think CMD is probably better because Tumble and AC are probably going to be fairly different.

The problem with Tumble is that you think that only dextrous types can use it, but that's not true. Anyone (and their grandma) can either wear light armour or figure out how to not be encumbered if they're running around in melee. When the wizards and whatnot are using it, then you'll be groaning. Putting one rank in Tumble qualifies you as being trained, then you add your Dex bonus and other junk you want. Assuming you can reliably hit DC 15, you won't ever suffer and AoO again. I think it's a popular recommendation to put 5 ranks in Tumble at some point in your career for synergy bonuses and whatnot.

My biggest gripe with the 3.5 system is the lack of opposed checks. Another classic example is Concentration which has a DC 15 + spell level in order to cast defensively (no AoO while casting). This means that the check actually becomes easier as you level up because you get 2 skill ranks each time you get a new spell level. Again, I think Concentration vs CMD + spell level would be more appropriate.

I've been using the Tumble house rule for years and everyone loves it (including the Dervish character). I would recommend it to anyone. The extra bonus is seeing people actually trying to optimize those skills (putting the minimum amount of ranks in to get the job done, then spend the ranks elsewhere). Additionally, characters who optimize AoOs (like chain trippers) will have to optimize CMD in order to stop tumbling jerks who want to murder damsels.

Personally I blame the description that attacks of opportunity are caused by a combatant lowering their otherwise perfect guard. It seems to me that the idea that everyone has an impenetrable defense against attacks of opportunity by default was a consideration in making the rules and so it becomes more about a person's ability to multitask and less about what others are doing.

[Keld Denar]

You should check again, actually, because many Tumble uses provoke AoOs.

Now you are just picking nits. We are all refering to the use of tumble to exit a threatened square without provoking AoOs. That is what has been discussed since the beginning of the thread. That is what Swiftmongoose was refering to. You are deflecting the arguement by attacking symantics that you've infered by taking a post out of context.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You should check again, actually, because many Tumble uses provoke AoOs. Standing up from prone as a free action (DC 35) provokes. You can use Tumble to treat a fall as if it were a shorter distance dropped, but you still generate AoOs when you fall past enemies. It's only some specific uses of Tumble that provide an exception to movement provoking AoOs.
You know what I meant. :smallannoyed:

Now you are just picking nits. We are all refering to the use of tumble to exit a threatened square without provoking AoOs. That is what has been discussed since the beginning of the thread. That is what Swiftmongoose was refering to.

Aye.

[Fuhrmaaj]

And this is why I suggested we not get into this...nobody is gonna convince anyone.

You've convinced me.


Re OP, one precedent examppe for skill vs attack is Mounted Combat. If you do this houserule, consider copying that (use higher of AC and skill check) . Unfortunately this is a serious nerf (high CR beatsticks have insane attack mods). Maybe +10 to the tumbler. Mounted Combat is unique b/c mount pets tend to have terrible AC and investing WBL in it would be inefficient.

I do like the idea that a more skilled attacker is harder to tumble around, but since tumble is crucial to rogues (they often need to move for flanking or Hide (in plain sight) and are Ssquishy) IMO the nerf should be minimal and for this 'attacker skill matters' token flavor.

I'm just curious if you have an example of this? I just went for Titan because it's CR 21 and has 20 HD, but its CMD would be 10 base + 20 BAB+ 11 str + 1 dex + 2 size (if PF rules are used) = DC 44

Assuming starting with 16 dex, Rogue has 23 ranks + 11 dex + 2 synergy = +36 bonus. The Rogue needs to roll an 8 to Tumble past the Titan. I did not include any magic items which improve Tumble in this figure.

And really, lockdown fighters have one thing going for them so if that's negated by Rogues tumbling about then it's pretty frustrating. Similarly, Crusaders with Thicket of Blades do one thing, and using a bad reading of the rules to allow people to tumble through it makes the Crusader a bad class considering the DC 15 check. At least Rogues can still do something other than tumbling and flanking if it's clear that it's not working. Fighters/Crusaders can only try to end the combat quicker if they can't deny tumblers.

The houserule only makes it so that Rogues have to invest in Tumbling, in my experience they don't have any difficulties tumbling around most of the Monster Manual.


Now you are just picking nits. We are all refering to the use of tumble to exit a threatened square without provoking AoOs. That is what has been discussed since the beginning of the thread. That is what Swiftmongoose was refering to.

Agreed. I don't agree with Curmedgeon's reading of Thicket of Blades. It does say any sort of movement provokes an attack of opportunity. I would like to think that the maneuver would say something like "opponents are required to make a DC 15 Tumble check to ignore a Crusader's best class feature" if that were the case as well.

[Curmudgeon]

Now you are just picking nits. We are all refering to the use of tumble to exit a threatened square without provoking AoOs.
No, I'm not just picking nits; I'm attempting to show that Tumble, used very specifically to attempt to avoid AoOs from movement, is anything but a general movement rule. If there's any difference in degree of specificity, that Tumble sub-skill is more specific than a stance.

I think part of the difficulty here is conceptual. This use of Tumble ─ despite being unavailable before training, requiring initiation on every movement, and failing without a sufficiently high check ─ still strikes people as a familiar "general" option simply because it's been around since the start of 3rd edition D&D. Players have subsumed the details through long exposure, and forgotten how much specificity there is in trying to use the skill in this way. Tome of Battle, in contrast, is newer, so even the simple options in that book like stances (either active or not) are seen as more particular than they really are.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, a fighter can get it at level 10 by burning two feats. Of course, by then, the crusader will have all relevant feats for a lockdown build, too.

If you want to specialize in lockdown, you might take two levels of fighter on your crusader for the extra feats, but if you had to choose between the two, you'd be better off with crusader.

A specialized lockdown build will probably want more than just two fighter levels. Heck unless you multiclass monk, go fighter 16, or otherwise find a way to give a truly large boost to your AoO damage then the save DC from standstill will not be that good (plus it makes your retaliatory punishment more effective which helps you eliminate targets faster which helps keep you alive) and there are a lot of feats out there that a lockdown build could want if they want to punish all actions (or lack of actions). But then again that would only be if you were going to specialize in lockdown the nice thing about crusaders is that they don't have to specialize in lockdown and can do other things while having only a passing attempt at some of the lock down stuff. In other words crusaders are more versatile.

[Veyr]

Curmudgeon, you are simply wrong when you say that a rule is either general or specific. Those words only apply relative to other rules.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, I'm not just picking nits; I'm attempting to show that Tumble, used very specifically to attempt to avoid AoOs from movement, is anything but a general movement rule. If there's any difference in degree of specificity, that Tumble sub-skill is more specific than a stance.

I think part of the difficulty here is conceptual. This use of Tumble ─ despite being unavailable before training, requiring initiation on every movement, and failing without a sufficiently high check ─ still strikes people as a familiar "general" option simply because it's been around since the start of 3rd edition D&D. Players have subsumed the details through long exposure, and forgotten how much specificity there is in trying to use the skill in this way. Tome of Battle, in contrast, is newer, so even the simple options in that book like stances (either active or not) are seen as more particular than they really are.

You still know what I meant, and you are nitpicking. We are using tumble for the one particular use of it because that's what this thread's about, and you know that.

[Keld Denar]

There are different tiers, though.

1. In general, moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO.
No disagreements.
2. When you make a DC15 tumble check and move at half speed, leaving a threatened square doesn't provoke.
No disagreements. This is an exception to point 1.
3. Taking a 5' step never provokes.
Again, if you are able to take it, it doesn't provoke. This is also an exception to point 1.
4. Withdrawing doesn't provoke for the first square left.
Again, an exception to point 1.
5. All movement, including explicitly 2 types of movment that normally don't provoke, provoke AoOs around Thicket of Blades.
This point explicitly is an exception to points 3 and 4, and implicitly an exception to point 2, all of which are exceptions to point 1.

It is possible to have exceptions to exceptions. Heck, the english language does it all the time (I before E, except after C, except when its not, just because).

[King Atticus]

Sorry, I know less than nothing about Pathfinder. What does CMD stand for?

Also I think it's interesting that people skimp out on putting ranks in tumble anyway. When I play that type of character I keep it maxed out. I want to be able to pass any check with it. It's my favorite skill to use in the game and I find ways to use it all over the place.

So for all of you 1 rank tumblers...shame on you. :smallbiggrin:

[olentu]

Sorry, I know less than nothing about Pathfinder. What does CMD stand for?

Also I think it's interesting that people skimp out on putting ranks in tumble anyway. When I play that type of character I keep it maxed out. I want to be able to pass any check with it. It's my favorite skill to use in the game and I find ways to use it all over the place.

So for all of you 1 rank tumblers...shame on you. :smallbiggrin:

Combat maneuver defense I believe.

[HunterOfJello]

I get the impression from the RAW tumbling rules that the creators decided to make that aspect of the game as simple as possible to avoid unnecessary rolling and complications for the simple action of moving at half-speed while in combat.

[Gwendol]

HunterOfJello: Agreed.

And while on topic, tumbling to avoid AoO is rarely a flat DC15 in my games, or are all your dungeons/forests/streets completely unobstructed, and do you never have to escape from threatened areas of more than one enemy?

[ffone]

You've convinced me.

I'm just curious if you have an example of this?

Pick most any high-CR Animal, Vermin, Magical Beast, or Monstrous Humanoid, or Elemental, Plant, Construct, etc. (i.e. beatstick-y Types).

I need to dig up that really neat table of average attack/saves/HP/etc. by CR.



I just went for Titan because it's CR 21 and has 20 HD, but its CMD would be 10 base + 20 BAB+ 11 str + 1 dex + 2 size (if PF rules are used) = DC 44

Assuming starting with 16 dex, Rogue has 23 ranks + 11 dex + 2 synergy = +36 bonus. The Rogue needs to roll an 8 to Tumble past the Titan. I did not include any magic items which improve Tumble in this figure.

What's CMD? Its grapple mod is 44, but I'm not familiar with CMD.

The titan's attack mod is 37. However it will add an average of 10.5 from the attack roll d20 itself, for 47-48, so our rogue has a slightly less than 50% chance to succeed.

Also titans, like most other Outsiders, actually don't have a particularly good attack mod for their CR, because they have a bunch of magical abilities, special qualities, great mental stats and 3 good saves, etc.

The archetypical CR 20 beatstick might be the Tarrasque, with an attack mod of 57. Now the rogue has almost no chance. Sure, some DMs will allow a custom magic item to boost tumble, and skill items are considered a good buy in many cases - but at 10K gp for +10, 40K for +20 or 90k for +30, that's a lot of money even at L20 - the rogue's probably better off just buying a bunch of teleportation items. Like a fresh anklet of translocation (2/day 10' swift teleports for 1,400 gp) for every encounter.

(The fact that everyone and his brother brags about trivially beating the tarrasque by flying is irrelevant. In fact nerfing tumble will exacerbate any "magic beats beatsticks and mundanes" issues.)