Alternate Tumble and Defensive Casting rules?

[Setra]

Long story short, I feel it's annoying that after a certain point it's impossible to fail tumbling or defensive casting, but early on it can actually be quite difficult to do either.

I don't want them to necessarily have a high chance of failure, because I don't want them to feel the skills are useless, but I'd like to find some sort of method that scales a bit.

[Cicciograna]

Quickest idea that springs to mind - make it scale with attacker's BAB. For a very rough draft of such rules:

BAB + 5 to tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.
BAB + 15 to tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.

BAB + 2*Spell level to cast defensively.

[Setra]

Quickest idea that springs to mind - make it scale with attacker's BAB. For a very rough draft of such rules:

BAB + 5 to tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.
BAB + 15 to tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so.

BAB + 2*Spell level to cast defensively.
I definitely like this idea, though I think I'll do a little fine tuning, no offense.

[A_S]

I've always thought it made sense to just compare your tumble/concentration check to the AB of the AoO you would provoke if the check fails (maybe +10). Is that too much book keeping?

[Deepbluediver]

Rather than not provoking attacks of opportunity on a Tumble-check, what if tumbling just gave you a boost to your AC against those attacks?

For example, on a DC of 15, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to attacks of opportunity provoked by moving past an opponent's square. For every 5 points by which you exceed the DC, the bonus increases by +2. If you move at only half your normal speed you gain a +5 circumstance bonus on the check; if you want to move through an opponents square instead of merely past them, you take a -5 penalty.
It's easy, straightforward, and infinitely scaleable.

I originally tried basing some of my revised combat manuevers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249818) off of the opponent's BAB, but another poster convinced me that in most cases, keeping track of a variable DC and recalculating it constantly is time-consuming and can get annoying; you should just be careful where and when you use something like that.


For defensive casting- is it really necessary to have this mechanic at all? At least in it's current form? Primary casters are supposed to relatively squishy in close-combat, which is why they have plenty of spells designed to prevent it from ever being an issue.
Also, fighting defensively only gives a character a +2 boost to AC at the cost of -4 to attack rolls; the caster-version seems much more powerful (total immunity to attacks of opportunity). I would honestly prefer to just scrap Defensive Casting entirely and let the squishies squirm a bit.

[Setra]

Rather than not provoking attacks of opportunity on a Tumble-check, what if tumbling just just gave you a boost to your AC against those attacks?

For example, on a DC of 15, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to attacks of opportunity provoked by moving past an opponent's square. For every 5 points by which you exceed the DC, the bonus increases by +2. If you move at only half your normal speed you gain a +5 circumstance bonus on the check, if you want to more through an opponents square instead of merely past them, you take a -5 penalty.
It's easy, straightforward, and infinitely scaleable.

I originally tried basing some of my revised combat manuevers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249818) off of the opponent's BAB, but another poster convinced me that in most cases, keeping track of a variable DC and recalculating it constantly is time-consuming and annoying.


For defensive casting- is it really necessary to have this mechanic at all? At least in it's current form? Primary casters are supposed to relatively squishy in close-combat, which is why they have plenty of spells designed to prevent it from ever being an issue.
Also, fighting defensively only give me a +2 boost to AC at the cost of -4 to my attack rolls; the caster-version seems much more powerful (total immunity to attacks of opportunity). I would honestly prefer to just scrap Defensive Casting entirely and let the squishies squirm a bit.
Well I don't generally find keeping track of the enemy BaB to be difficult, especially since it's something I usually keep in my notes anyway, but I do like the adding AC with Tumble.

I don't mind the idea of casters being squishy, but I think, for example, a level 15 Wizard should perhaps have little to no difficulty casting a level 1 spell, but have a chance of failing if he tries to use his full power.

Also, while succeeding the check for casting defensively is strong, failing the check is pretty harsh, in my opinion, since you lose the spell.

[Firest Kathon]

I like how Pathfinder does it:

Tumble is an Acrobatics skill check (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics#move-through-threatened-area) against Combat Maneuver Defense (BAB + Str + Dex + Size + 10). If anything, it gets very hard to successfully tumble later in the game without some serious effort (feats etc).

Defensive casting is a concentration check (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Concentration) against DC 15 + 2x Spell Level. In addition, concentration is no longer a skill, meaning you cannot do a lot to improve it beyond the standard of Caster Level + Casting Stat Modifier. The only things that come to mind are Combat Casting for +4 and a trait for another +2. So a e.g. a 11th level Wizard with an Int of 20 gets +22, while the DC for a 6th level spell is 27. Still a 75% chance of success, but a chance for failure is there on high-level spells.

[Setra]

I like how Pathfinder does it:

Tumble is an Acrobatics skill check (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/acrobatics#move-through-threatened-area) against Combat Maneuver Defense (BAB + Str + Dex + Size + 10). If anything, it gets very hard to successfully tumble later in the game without some serious effort (feats etc).

Defensive casting is a concentration check (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Concentration) against DC 15 + 2x Spell Level. In addition, concentration is no longer a skill, meaning you cannot do a lot to improve it beyond the standard of Caster Level + Casting Stat Modifier. The only things that come to mind are Combat Casting for +4 and a trait for another +2. So a e.g. a 11th level Wizard with an Int of 20 gets +22, while the DC for a 6th level spell is 27. Still a 75% chance of success, but a chance for failure is there on high-level spells.
Honestly, I don't really like the Tumbling there. Against a random foe they defeated earlier, his 'tumble defense' would be 10 higher than the party member they fought that had tumble, and his ECL was two lower.

Against my current BBEG it'd be so high the check is impossible.

When it's somewhere between a coin flip and impossible, tumbling starts to feel pointless.

DC 15+2x spell level seems decent though.

[Deepbluediver]

Well I don't generally find keeping track of the enemy BaB to be difficult, especially since it's something I usually keep in my notes anyway, but I do like the adding AC with Tumble.

Hey, if it works for you, then go for it. I just wanted to warn you about some of the concerns that where raised when I tried something similar.

Also, I'm sure you're aware of this, but you don't need to only take ideas from one person; if you like different versions, you can have modify the skill to have different options. For example a static (flat) check to let you avoid AoO entirely, but caps movement at 10 ft. and a variable or scaling check with a higher risk/reward factor.


I don't mind the idea of casters being squishy, but I think, for example, a level 15 Wizard should perhaps have little to no difficulty casting a level 1 spell, but have a chance of failing if he tries to use his full power.

Also, while succeeding the check for casting defensively is strong, failing the check is pretty harsh, in my opinion, since you lose the spell.

Casting has many issues, not just with its spells but also (IMO at least) with the most basic mechanical rules for how it functions. Without getting off-topic, if you felt that losing a spell on failure was too harsh, then just change that. Alter it so that failing the concentration check doesn't use up the spell slot if you don't suceed in casting. That makes it hard for the Wizard to cast while getting punched in the face by a Monk, but he won't actually expend any of his daily allotment of magical energy until he actually suceeds.


DC 15+2x spell level seems decent though.

I've used the "2x spell level" modifier before for various calculations, but usually only to keep up with character level. If the check is based only off of the ability modifier without skill points, then 10+spell level might be suficient, depending on what stat is used. Is it still Constitution based (which is secondary for most casters) or is it based on their primary casting stat?

[Setra]

Casting has many issues, not just with its spells but also (IMO at least) with the most basic mechanical rules for how it functions. Without getting off-topic, if you felt that losing a spell on failure was too harsh, then just change that. Alter it so that failing the concentration check doesn't use up the spell slot if you don't suceed in casting. That makes it hard for the Wizard to cast while getting punched in the face by a Monk, but he won't actually expend any of his daily allotment of magical energy until he actually suceeds.
Hmm, that's true, didn't think about changing the penalty.


I've used the "2x spell level" modifier before for various calculations, but usually only to keep up with character level. If the check is based only off of the ability modifier without skill points, then 10+spell level might be suficient, depending on what stat is used. Is it still Constitution based (which is secondary for most casters) or is it based on their primary casting stat?
Concentration is still the same as in the book, though I had considered making it based on the primary casting stat.

Currently in my campaign, we have a level 13 Warlock with 20 Concentration, and his Eldritch blast counts as.. actually it's level 7 now isn't it? I'm pretty new so I don't have a lot of stuff memorized just yet.

But assuming the 15+2xspell level, it'd be DC29. He also has a teleport which I'm not sure but I believe counts as 4th level, it'd be DC 23. This sounds good to me personally. Obviously a Warlock is different from a Wizard, but in either case, using full power has a decent chance of failure, but trying to use a lower level spell to escape is much more likely to work... the problem being that a level 1 player would pretty much be unable to cast defensively... but then again, maybe that's not so bad? A level 13 Wizard with 20 Concentration can cast low level spells with little problem, but those spells are beneath him. To a level 1 Wizard, using a level 1 spell is using his highest level spells.

[Philistine]

Even with this, you have to corner the caster where they can't just take a 5' step back and cast unimpeded anyway. And flying casters add yet another dimension of complication to that.