PDA

View Full Version : Balancing Tumble..



daggaz
2007-09-05, 06:51 PM
Ok, I did search the threads for this, but was left rather surprisingly dissapointed, so here goes.

Yeah, tumble is broken. I think we can all agree on this, at least to some point. The DC for tumbling past an enraged red dragon is the same for a master swordsman is the same for a drunken commoner is the same for a lvl 1 goblin. Whatever.. And to make matters worse, you can nail those DC checks down pat at rather low levels, if you take the right skills and feats (like 5 ranks in jump, etc..)

So a 5th level rogue could conceivably tumble past an enraged red dragon AND a 20th level master swordsman at the same time, no fail whatsoever. Yeah, like I said, its broken.

So in my upcoming campaign, I wanted to balance it out a bit. I thought, how about a tumble check opposed with a d20 + dex mod + BAB? An opponent with more AoO's gets to make an additional check for each move that would normally draw an AoO, up to its normal limit. Also, perhaps there would be a cumalative (??) -2 penalty for each square tumbled thru after the first, as it must be kinda hard to keep up that kind of movement, and statistically, at some point mistakes must catch up to you.

Now, if the tumbler wins the opposed check, they tumble thru. If they fail, there is an attack... Here I want to say that its an automatic hit, not only for fluff reasons (tho I can fluff it out why they failed their tumble but avoided a blow as well), but also just to keep the game moving along...too many rolls = the ugly world of grapple checks. But I could bend on this one, perhaps the attack roll must be made as well. Now, whether or not the motion continues onwards, im stuck on. I see three possibilities here for a failed tumble check and accompanying attack.

1. The AoO misses, and the tumbler continues on with their actions as normal.
2. The AoO hits, and the tumbler is stopped in their tracks.. (oooh risk!!)
3. The AoO hits, the tumbler takes damage but continues on unrelentingly, provided they survived or werent otherwise immobilized.

So...what do you guys and gals think?

kjones
2007-09-05, 06:55 PM
I came up with an almost identical houserule. I posted it in the homebrew forums... let me see if I can find it.

Here we go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46306&highlight=tumble) I could have sworn it got some responses...

I don't think you can really call tumble "broken", though, since it's not imbalancingly powerful. It's just unrealistic, and breaks verisimilitude.

Seffbasilisk
2007-09-05, 06:58 PM
Seems like a rather harsh nerf on tumbling. Just something to keep in mind, is that each person threatening adds a +2 to the DC. Fail, and everyone threatening gets to swing.

Terrain is often against a tumbler, and things like grease and such can give horrible modifiers vs it.

True it's easy to boost, but if you boost tumble, you're doing it at the expense of other things, and if you focus in tumbling while I'm learning to tie knots, and climb like a monkey...if I can climb up and rig up a harness to hoist everyone else up with, I damn well expect you to be able to tumble past that enraged red dragon.

Also, tumble is also limited as it 1/2s your movement, and that means you can spend an entire move action making tumble checks to try to get around a size large foe (AFTER you close with him...)

Additionally, anything that provide an automatic hit is a bad thing. If I knew I'd get auto-hits on things like that, I'd just make a battlefield control fighter with power attack. I get such an AoO, PA for FULL seeing as it's gonna auto-hit...etc etc.


Seems more like a hatred of tumbling then a feel of unrealism in the game mechanic.

Edit: If you're going to go with an anti-tumble houserule, why not make it that the thing being tumbled past makes a dex check, and either that, or DC 15 (whichever is higher) is the DC for tumble no AoO? Multiple dex checks for tumbling through multiple squares if the tumblee has Combat Reflexes.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-05, 06:59 PM
Having to do an opposed check slows the game down immensely. Why not 10+BAB+Dex instead, so that you're effectively always taking ten?

kjones
2007-09-05, 07:00 PM
I don't think you can power attack on an attack of opportunity.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-05, 07:02 PM
I don't think you can power attack on an attack of opportunity.

Actually, your Power Attack from your last attack carries over.


Benefit

On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-05, 07:12 PM
There's a very in-depth article on fixing tumble here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/thoughts-on-tumbling.html), by Justin Alexander of "aragorn is 5th level" fame. He talks about a lot of the problems faced by different tumble houserules, so you should take a look at it if you're planning to houserule. I'm not sure I'd adopt his solution (nor am I sure I wouldn't), but his description of the game mechanics involved is very interesting.

ForzaFiori
2007-09-05, 07:15 PM
Instead of making an opposed tumble check, make an attack, only the characters AC is its Tumble check.

That way, if it hits, you dont have to roll a seperate attack, and the fluff works.

i mean, when a guy tries to flip past me, i'm not gonna do a roll to hit him, i'm gonna smack him with whatever is in my hand.

Anxe
2007-09-05, 07:17 PM
I already use that house rule, except without the BAB added on to the opposed roll. I have the NPC roll a tumble check against the PC's tumble check. The NPC gets a +10 bonus.

TheOOB
2007-09-05, 07:18 PM
Having to do an opposed check slows the game down immensely. Why not 10+BAB+Dex instead, so that you're effectively always taking ten?

Thats pretty much what I've been doing. A character with a decent dex and maxed out tumble will still get around their opponent most the time with no problem, but a tougher foe will cause more trouble.

In games as well as life, the simplest solution is usually the best.

daggaz
2007-09-05, 07:36 PM
Lots of good advice here guys, thanks a lot.

RAGE KING!
2007-09-05, 07:38 PM
...Tumble is less powerful than you make it out to be, but it's still really good.

...I had something better to say, but forgot.


Maybe you should add the opponents level/cr to the DC.

Talya
2007-09-05, 07:42 PM
My house rule:


Tumble
Tumble is a useful skill, and should remain so. However, tumble is an easy "Get out of attacks of opportunity free" roll at higher levels, and you don't even need to put many ranks into it to ensure success most of the time. I'm making a minor change to it...the difficulty level for a perfect tumble now has half the BAB of your opponent added to it. If you beat the standard DC on the roll, but fail to beat the DC modified by the target's BAB/2, he gets to take an attack of opportunity (although your tumble is not halted at that point.) In this scenario, you gain +4 to armor class (as if you had the mobility feat, although it does stack to +8 if you also have the mobility feat) against the resulting AOO. If you fail to beat the standard DC, tumble fails like it normally would: your tumble stops and you do not gain the AC bonus.

enderrocksonall
2007-09-05, 07:58 PM
Instead of making an opposed tumble check, make an attack, only the characters AC is its Tumble check.

That way, if it hits, you dont have to roll a seperate attack, and the fluff works.

i mean, when a guy tries to flip past me, i'm not gonna do a roll to hit him, i'm gonna smack him with whatever is in my hand.

I like this idea...migh use it for my own game. We used to have a rule of an anti-tumble, where-by if your opponent has 5 or more ranks in tumble, he can choose to make an opposed tumble check to stop your movement. However, using that option means that he can't make an AoO even if he fails the check.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-05, 07:59 PM
Tumble's not really broken. Sure, a 5th level rogue could tumble past a 20th level master swordsman, but said swordsman will then turn around and one-hit the rogue on his next turn. It's annoying, but that's not the same as broken.

goat
2007-09-06, 09:02 AM
Also, tumble is also limited as it 1/2s your movement, and that means you can spend an entire move action making tumble checks to try to get around a size large foe (AFTER you close with him...)

Only until you're certain you can hit DC35, at which point you can tumble at full speed. A level 10 Rogue who's taken skill mastery will be able to take 10 on it, meaning they only need 20 more, and so that's +13 from skill, +2 from synergy, +4 from Dex 18 (quite likely) and the one more needed can come from either more dex, a skill boosting item (which they may have bought earlier to ensure they could hit 20 a few levels ago) or a feat.

Edit - Oh wait, it needs to be 25, not 20. Soo... A slightly better skill boosting item. +6 is only what... 3600?

Person_Man
2007-09-06, 09:27 AM
Tumble is not broken, and does not need to be balanced.

1) Most classes don't have Tumble as a class Skill. Thus they cannot reliably use Tumble until mid-high levels, and they have to pay a heavy point investment to do so. And if they wear armor, they have to worry about the Armor Check penalty.

2) The classes that have Tumble as a class Skill are generally the weakest classes. Rogue, Bard, Monk, Scout, etc. These classes need Tumble to always work reliably in order to be useful. If some player wants to multi-class into one of these classes in order to add Tumble to their class list, that's fine with me, because it usually lowers their BAB/hit points/caster progression/etc. Although there are a few clever workarounds, as DM you can simply ban the workarounds, rather then creating a cumbersome house rule to manage their abuse.

3) There are a variety of ways enemies can defeat Tumble. Various battlefield control spells, levels of Knight, Hold the Line, and perhaps Thicket of Blades (depending on how you read it).

4) As DM, you can always balance out encounters by simply planning the encounters more carefully. If the Rogue is Tumbling past a red dragon, the red dragon can simply fly around and rain down death with his spells and breath weapon. A 20th level swordsman can take Thicket of Blades. A Wizard can cast Solid Fog. How useful is Tumble then?

5) If you nerf Tumble, then battlefield control builds become even more obnoxious.

6) On a regular basis, you want to let players do things that are cool and seem powerful. As DM, you want to challenge them, not constantly thwart them. You need to give them their moment in the spotlight. If Tumble let's them do that, I'm all for it. It seems a lot less powerful then some of the other things I see every week at the game table.

tainsouvra
2007-09-06, 10:06 AM
Yeah, tumble is broken. I think we can all agree on this, at least to some point. Amusingly, I disagree here. I don't see Tumble as being broken, I see many players as misinterpreting what a Tumble entails. To each his own houserule, I suppose :smalltongue:

Tormsskull
2007-09-06, 10:09 AM
Tumble is not broken, and does not need to be balanced.


This was my thought as well.

Telonius
2007-09-06, 11:02 AM
I would be very much against nerfing the Tumble skill.

Consider the effect it will have. Who has Tumble as a class skill? Bard, Monk, and Rogue. Bards still have to deal with armor, so the danger there is somewhat lessened. And Monks - do you really want to make their life more difficult than it already is?

That leaves us with the Rogue. Okay, they're a nifty class, skillmonkey points and all. Their main source of offensive output is the Sneak Attack. Without it, they're basically an Expert with a few more skill points. Rogues can only gain Sneak Attacks in a limited number of ways - sniping (which is extremely difficult to pull off with the large penalties, usually requires terrain advantage, and requires the use of ranged weapons), turning invisible (which is very costly), Blinking (not feasible until you get a Ring of Blink, and most useful with ranged weapons), or flanking. Not surprisingly, flanking is probably the most common method most Rogues use to get their sneak attack in.

But in most cases, it's pretty difficult to get over to where you're in a flanking position, without moving through a monster-threatened square. If Tumble becomes more difficult than it is, the Rogue has to either get a bow and forgo his iconic class feature until he can afford to get a bunch of magic items, or risk massive death by attracting attacks of opportunity. (Rogues are very, very squishy characters). Or, he can sit back, hide, and watch the rest of the party kill the monsters, and return to his role as "trap, treasure, and secret door detector" when the dust has settled.

Inigo_Carmine
2007-09-06, 12:24 PM
The classes that have Tumble as a class Skill are generally the weakest classes. Rogue, Bard, Monk, Scout, etc. These classes need Tumble to always work reliably in order to be useful.

While I would disagree that all of those classes are weak (I think the rogue is about the best balanced class in the game), I agree that tumble is an essential part of their class. That is to say, the way tumble works is not an oversight or a loophole...it's a feature intended to work exactly that way.

It is given to low-AC combatants that are typically found in melee. The rogue especially is nigh useless in combat if he can't position himself correctly. And when he does position himself correctly, he's useful in combat, not all powerful.

Keep in mind what an AoO is. It's an attack that normally had no chance of getting through but now does because the target dropped his guard. Tumble is not a failsafe defense against a master swordsmans most determined attacks (those are represented by his normal rounds worth of actions). It means that the tumbler's guard didn't drop any more while moving than it would have if he had stayed in the same general area.

Person_Man
2007-09-06, 03:06 PM
While I would disagree that all of those classes are weak (I think the rogue is about the best balanced class in the game), I agree that tumble is an essential part of their class. That is to say, the way tumble works is not an oversight or a loophole...it's a feature intended to work exactly that way.

It is given to low-AC combatants that are typically found in melee. The rogue especially is nigh useless in combat if he can't position himself correctly. And when he does position himself correctly, he's useful in combat, not all powerful.

Keep in mind what an AoO is. It's an attack that normally had no chance of getting through but now does because the target dropped his guard. Tumble is not a failsafe defense against a master swordsmans most determined attacks (those are represented by his normal rounds worth of actions). It means that the tumbler's guard didn't drop any more while moving than it would have if he had stayed in the same general area.

I disagree with you on the Rogue's power level, and agree with you totally that tumble is an essential part of their class.

1) Until Special Abilities and respectable UMD kick in, Rogues are essentially limited to Sneak Attacking things if they want to be effective.

2) Whole groups of enemies are immune to Precision damage, forcing Rogues to invest feats and/or gp into items and/or variant abilities in various workarounds, thus forfeiting things they could have used for other purposes.
Or they can just suck rocks against some very common D&D enemies.

3) Sneak Attack scales very poorly (average +1.75 damage per level) compared to other sources of damage (spells, Power Attack, Leap Attack, ToB, etc) which they can't use very effectively.

4) Until mid-high levels when it gets access to various workarounds, if the Rogue wants to deal respectable damage after the first round of combat it pretty much has to Flank. Thus it must usually Tumble behind the enemy and attack it in melee.

5) The Rogue lacks high AC and hit points, which makes Flanking a very dangerous proposition. Plus the nature of Sneak Attack means that they usually want to use TWF, limiting the use of reach weapons and battlefield control tactics. This makes being able to Tumble AWAY from combat just as important.

Essentially, Rogues are nerfed Fighters with a boatload of useful Skills and better maneuverability. Now I thoroughly enjoy playing them - in fact the even less powerful Scout is one of my favorite classes. But let's not have any illusions about Sneak Attack and Tumble somehow being better then Leap Attack and Shock Trooper with a reach weapon.

daggaz
2007-09-06, 04:08 PM
Hmm... I just didn't like how it worked conceptually, the whole flat DC thing vs anything else.... But when you put it into light with how it balances with the other game mechanics, well hmm, don't think I'll mess with it after all. Thanks for the arguments, Personman (and others).

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-06, 04:25 PM
All I'd really do is bring back the "1 is always a failure rule" for skills. Otherwise, I'm fine with Tumble.

Quietus
2007-09-06, 04:54 PM
I don't find Tumble to be too horribly broken at all - I think the way it works now is just fine. After all, in the best case scenario, until you can always pass a DC 35 or whatever check to tumble at full speed, you'll still be within charge range for the melee beast you just had to get past in the first place.

If you don't like it, the easiest way to fix it is to make it so that you can tumble, which replaces your AC when moving. This way, even Mobility can be useful (as it still applies when you're tumbling), enemies make AoO's as normal, but if you're a good enough tumbler, they'll have a rough time hitting you.

Overlard
2007-09-06, 07:05 PM
All I'd really do is bring back the "1 is always a failure rule" for skills. Otherwise, I'm fine with Tumble.
I really hate the "1 is always a failure" rule for skills. It means that no matter how experienced you are, no matter how talented or skilled, you're gonna screw up 5% of the time.

John_D
2007-09-07, 03:35 AM
Our group always played it that an opponent can try to "counter-tumble" as opposed to the straight DC15. I was actually a little shocked when I saw that this was not a normal rule.

...ooh, a DC100 tumble check lets you ignore ALL falling damage.

Renx
2007-09-07, 04:34 AM
I really hate the "1 is always a failure" rule for skills. It means that no matter how experienced you are, no matter how talented or skilled, you're gonna screw up 5% of the time.

Unless you take 10/20.

Thinker
2007-09-07, 08:12 AM
All I'd really do is bring back the "1 is always a failure rule" for skills. Otherwise, I'm fine with Tumble.

1's being automatic failures for anything is stupid. Why punish players for being unlucky?

goat
2007-09-07, 08:28 AM
...ooh, a DC100 tumble check lets you ignore ALL falling damage.

I always liked DC100 Climb. You can be Spider-man.

Overlard
2007-09-07, 09:17 AM
1's being automatic failures for anything is stupid. Why punish players for being unlucky?
As much as I hate the automatic failure too, the bolded part makes me laugh considering that every time you roll a die in D&D, you're punished for bad luck and rewarded for good luck.

It's unbalanced in the favour of lucky people, I tells ya! :smallbiggrin:

Golthur
2007-09-07, 09:33 AM
As much as I hate the automatic failure too, the bolded part makes me laugh considering that every time you roll a die in D&D, you're punished for bad luck and rewarded for good luck.

It's unbalanced in the favour of lucky people, I tells ya! :smallbiggrin:

As an inherently unlucky person with respect to dice, I have to agree.

The dice, they conspire against me, you see? :tongue:

Starbuck_II
2007-09-07, 10:00 AM
While I would disagree that all of those classes are weak (I think the rogue is about the best balanced class in the game), I agree that tumble is an essential part of their class. That is to say, the way tumble works is not an oversight or a loophole...it's a feature intended to work exactly that way.

It is given to low-AC combatants that are typically found in melee. The rogue especially is nigh useless in combat if he can't position himself correctly. And when he does position himself correctly, he's useful in combat, not all powerful.

Keep in mind what an AoO is. It's an attack that normally had no chance of getting through but now does because the target dropped his guard. Tumble is not a failsafe defense against a master swordsmans most determined attacks (those are represented by his normal rounds worth of actions). It means that the tumbler's guard didn't drop any more while moving than it would have if he had stayed in the same general area.


All the Tome of Battle classes get Tumble.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-07, 10:08 AM
On the flip side, no one seems to complain about the "20 being an automatic success" rule, which gives the same 5% chance to be lucky enough to make it, regardless of skill. Since we have times we can take 10 or take 20, the automatic failure/success needn't come into play all the time.

I've run a game where the rogue had a maxxed out Tumble skill. I've no real problem with that. In my opinion, specialization is the way to go. However, the one downside was that he reached a point where even taking in penalties, there was no way he could fail a tumble on any given roll. Ever.

It's my contention that in a stressful situation, failure should be a risk. In a routine use of a skill (where take 10 or take 20 applies), failure isn't a problem as this is something you can do with your hands tied behind your back. However, in combat there are people shifting all the time, swords and spears poking in your direction. Getting through a heavy combat area requires precise timing, and failure would mean getting hurt. There should be a miniscule chance that something could go wrong. Certainly, that's 5%, but on the flip side it means you have a 95% chance of success. Good odds any day.

The risk of failure creates drama. The consequences of failure creates tension. If we are assured success in any situation, no matter what, then we've lost thrill of danger. Great story isn't made by success alone, but success where there's a risk of failure.

Golthur
2007-09-07, 10:22 AM
On the flip side, no one seems to complain about the "20 being an automatic success" rule, which gives the same 5% chance to be lucky enough to make it, regardless of skill. Since we have times we can take 10 or take 20, the automatic failure/success needn't come into play all the time.

Actually, I do. I always change skill checks, attack rolls, and saving throws to a system that doesn't have 5% auto-success/failure rolls. I've been known to do -10/+30, but my current setup is open-ended rolls.

I hate the automatic 5% success/failure rules. :mad:

Saph
2007-09-07, 11:04 AM
I've spent a while looking at Tumble house-rules, and in my opinion, none of them add enough to the game to be worth the amount of extra math they involve.

Nearly all the 'realistic' Tumble houserules revolve around it being more difficult to tumble past tougher monsters, which means that each Tumble check, instead of being a slightly-complicated addition, becomes an opposed roll which requires looking up the enemy/enemies and working out their counter-Tumble score.

It's just not worth the effort. Besides, as Person says, the only core classes with Tumble are among the weakest in the game anyway.

- Saph

Overlard
2007-09-07, 12:47 PM
On the flip side, no one seems to complain about the "20 being an automatic success" rule, which gives the same 5% chance to be lucky enough to make it, regardless of skill.
I do. It gives you a 5% chance of doing the impossible, even without training.


I've run a game where the rogue had a maxxed out Tumble skill. I've no real problem with that. In my opinion, specialization is the way to go. However, the one downside was that he reached a point where even taking in penalties, there was no way he could fail a tumble on any given roll. Ever.

It's my contention that in a stressful situation, failure should be a risk. In a routine use of a skill (where take 10 or take 20 applies), failure isn't a problem as this is something you can do with your hands tied behind your back. However, in combat there are people shifting all the time, swords and spears poking in your direction. Getting through a heavy combat area requires precise timing, and failure would mean getting hurt. There should be a miniscule chance that something could go wrong. Certainly, that's 5%, but on the flip side it means you have a 95% chance of success. Good odds any day.

The risk of failure creates drama. The consequences of failure creates tension. If we are assured success in any situation, no matter what, then we've lost thrill of danger. Great story isn't made by success alone, but success where there's a risk of failure.
I agree that risk of failure maes things more interesting, but with the current system, no matter how high your attribute is, no matter how many ranks you have, no matter how many bonuses from feats, equipment and magic, you're still gonna screw up one time in twenty. If the chances were smaller, then I'd be OK with it, but 5% is too high a chance for an auto-fail.

Quietus
2007-09-07, 12:58 PM
I've spent a while looking at Tumble house-rules, and in my opinion, none of them add enough to the game to be worth the amount of extra math they involve.

Nearly all the 'realistic' Tumble houserules revolve around it being more difficult to tumble past tougher monsters, which means that each Tumble check, instead of being a slightly-complicated addition, becomes an opposed roll which requires looking up the enemy/enemies and working out their counter-Tumble score.

It's just not worth the effort. Besides, as Person says, the only core classes with Tumble are among the weakest in the game anyway.

- Saph

Not necessarily. In the suggestion I (and one other person, no real time to go back and look) made, everything goes normally. Opponent makes his attack of opportunity, the only difference is that your tumble check becomes your AC against his AoO. Thus, if your Tumble is high enough and you roll well enough, they won't be able to hit you, *because you were skilled enough to avoid it*. No extra math, and it still eats up one of their AoO attempts for the round, which I think is reasonable - the monster isn't going to decide not to swing just because you made a pretty somersault.

::Edit:: Also, as I mentioned, this would make the Mobility feat that much more attractive, because it would give a +4 to your AC *even while tumbling*. That'd make Dodge a poor feat, Mobility a mediocre (instead of outright horrible) one, and make things like Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack that much more likely to be purchased.

Cybren
2007-09-07, 01:03 PM
I'm pretty sure 1s AREN'T an auto-failure for skills. At least, I know a 20 isn't an auto-success.

Overlard
2007-09-07, 01:07 PM
Not necessarily. In the suggestion I (and one other person, no real time to go back and look) made, everything goes normally. Opponent makes his attack of opportunity, the only difference is that your tumble check becomes your AC against his AoO. Thus, if your Tumble is high enough and you roll well enough, they won't be able to hit you, *because you were skilled enough to avoid it*. No extra math, and it still eats up one of their AoO attempts for the round, which I think is reasonable - the monster isn't going to decide not to swing just because you made a pretty somersault.
As a matter of interest, do you do the same for concentration checks made when casting defensively? After all, the monster isn't going to decide not to swing just because you're casting slightly differently.

Your version is still another die roll, and only serves to add another layer of complexity to the process (which attacks of opportunity really don't need). And how do you resolve touch attacks? Or trip attempts? Or disarm attempts? Or grapples?

Tumbling doesn't need balancing, it serves it's limited purpose of avoiding AoOs, at the cost of movement.

Overlard
2007-09-07, 01:08 PM
I'm pretty sure 1s AREN'T an auto-failure for skills. At least, I know a 20 isn't an auto-success.
You're correct, although the auto-success/failure method is mentioned as an alternative in the DMG, I believe.

Quietus
2007-09-07, 01:15 PM
As a matter of interest, do you do the same for concentration checks made when casting defensively? After all, the monster isn't going to decide not to swing just because you're casting slightly differently.

Your version is still another die roll, and only serves to add another layer of complexity to the process (which attacks of opportunity really don't need). And how do you resolve touch attacks? Or trip attempts? Or disarm attempts? Or grapples?

Tumbling doesn't need balancing, it serves it's limited purpose of avoiding AoOs, at the cost of movement.

I personally don't use that variant. As for all of those things you mentioned, I run them as the book does. I was just throwing it out there as a suggestion.

I do like the "concentration as AC" idea, though - it'd certainly force the power level of casters down a notch, since there'd no longer be a point at which they simply can't manage to cast defensively. And I really don't think that adding the one extra roll to AoO's would make them all that much annoying - I think it'd be fine, really, if you have a problem with Tumble the way it is.

Hannes
2007-09-07, 01:16 PM
(Rogues are very, very squishy characters).

Oh. My. God. You are so wrong. My rogue's base damage is the same as the party fighter's, I have sneak attack, more AC than him and more hit points. Therefore, rogues are very squishy characters ONLY in an indoors campaign. Our DM doesn't like traps, I don't like skillmonkey rogues. I play 16 str 18 dex int 12 rogues.
EDIT: May I sig that?

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-07, 01:28 PM
Oh. My. God. You are so wrong. My rogue's base damage is the same as the party fighter's, I have sneak attack, more AC than him and more hit points. Therefore, rogues are very squishy characters ONLY in an indoors campaign. Our DM doesn't like traps, I don't like skillmonkey rogues. I play 16 str 18 dex int 12 rogues.
EDIT: May I sig that?

More HP? Wtf?

Hannes
2007-09-07, 01:29 PM
Bad rolls on his part, good rolls on mine.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-07, 02:08 PM
I do. It gives you a 5% chance of doing the impossible, even without training.

I agree that risk of failure maes things more interesting, but with the current system, no matter how high your attribute is, no matter how many ranks you have, no matter how many bonuses from feats, equipment and magic, you're still gonna screw up one time in twenty. If the chances were smaller, then I'd be OK with it, but 5% is too high a chance for an auto-fail.

Could be high, but for simplicity of system it works well enough. The auto-success/failure is simple. The 5% is a bit high, but that's because d20 gaming centers on the twenty-sided die. A d100 roll for skills with a roll of 01 being auto-failure and 00 being auto-success looks more attractive, but it's not the system we use at present. I favor the auto-success/failure rule because of its simplicity in application.

Telonius
2007-09-07, 02:08 PM
Oh. My. God. You are so wrong. My rogue's base damage is the same as the party fighter's, I have sneak attack, more AC than him and more hit points. Therefore, rogues are very squishy characters ONLY in an indoors campaign. Our DM doesn't like traps, I don't like skillmonkey rogues. I play 16 str 18 dex int 12 rogues.
EDIT: May I sig that?

Go ahead and sig away! :smallcool:

I will say, though, that your particular Rogue is a very unusual case - very good luck on your part and very bad luck on the fighter's. But that's not really the norm. To take a more extreme example, a Barbarian could have fewer hit points than a Wizard, if the rolls are poor enough. But this will only happen ... um ... is there a statistics expert in the house? Anyway, it will happen extremely rarely.

Saph
2007-09-07, 03:24 PM
I will say, though, that your particular Rogue is a very unusual case - very good luck on your part and very bad luck on the fighter's. But that's not really the norm. To take a more extreme example, a Barbarian could have fewer hit points than a Wizard, if the rolls are poor enough. But this will only happen ... um ... is there a statistics expert in the house? Anyway, it will happen extremely rarely.

I think Person_Man's a statistician. But as for a really crude estimate:

Barbs start off with 12 HP, Wizzes with 4. By about level 9, if the Wiz rolls 3 or 4 on every HD, averaging 3.5, and the Barb rolls 1, 2, or 3 on every HD, averaging 2, the Wiz will end up with higher HP.

But the chances of that happening over 8 sets of HD rolls are 1/2 to the power 8 times 1/4 to the power 8. Which gives a probability of about . . . 0.00000006. Which translates to a likelihood of 'Not in a million years'.

d6 HD versus d10 HD is a lot more likely, but smart money is still on the fighter.

- Saph

tainsouvra
2007-09-07, 05:58 PM
Nearly all the 'realistic' Tumble houserules revolve around it being more difficult to tumble past tougher monsters, which means that each Tumble check, instead of being a slightly-complicated addition, becomes an opposed roll which requires looking up the enemy/enemies and working out their counter-Tumble score.

It's just not worth the effort. Besides, as Person says, the only core classes with Tumble are among the weakest in the game anyway. In addition, I would argue that they aren't more realistic at all, they're just misinterpreting what either the attack of opportunity or the tumble check entails:
An attack of opportunity occurs when your opponent does something that leaves him especially vulnerable.
The tumble check is an attempt to move past your opponent without doing something that leaves you especially vulnerable.
The roll is for your skill in not leaving yourself vulnerable during your tumble, it does not involve your opponent's skill in any way.

I don't see anything realistic about an opposed roll to see how skilled one person is at doing something that does not, in any way, depend on someone else's skill. You don't make an opposed roll to avoid screwing up cooking while someone stands next to you, you don't make an opposed roll to avoid screwing up tying a knot while someone stands next to you, and you don't make an opposed roll to avoid screwing up tumbling while someone stands next to you.

Tumble makes sense as it is and helps to keep the game balanced. Changing it might fit some DM's tastes, but it's neither more realistic nor more balanced than the original. House rules are fine, but they shouldn't be justified in this way.


Oh. My. God. You are so wrong. My rogue's base damage is the same as the party fighter's, I have sneak attack, more AC than him and more hit points. Therefore, rogues are very squishy characters ONLY in an indoors campaign. Our DM doesn't like traps, I don't like skillmonkey rogues. I play 16 str 18 dex int 12 rogues. Anecdotes like this don't constitute proof of anything, particularly not proof that a general rule is wrong. Statistically speaking, the hit points are dreadfully unlikely, as noted earlier...but more importantly, the Fighter must be doing something very wrong if his base damage and AC aren't better than a Rogue of the same level. Add in a DM that is catering to a thug-rogue build and we get "too unusual to mean a darn thing" as our result.

So, we have a very lucky player with a thug-rogue build and a very unlucky player with a commoner-fighter build...all this proves is that there is something seriously funky going on in your party, nothing about the classes themselves.

skeeter_dan
2007-09-07, 07:50 PM
Personally, I like (and use) the 10 + BAB/20 + BAB houserule mentioned in the Alexandrian article. It's simple, doesn't require an extra roll, and makes it appropriately more difficult to tumble past higher level characters.

Hannes
2007-09-08, 12:43 AM
Well... The point is I use a large longspear and he uses a shield and a scimitar. So.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-08, 12:57 AM
So...what do you guys and gals think?

I think people often use the word broken frivolously to describe minor issues, instead of things that actually break the game wide open.

/nitpick

Starbuck_II
2007-09-08, 10:39 AM
Anecdotes like this don't constitute proof of anything, particularly not proof that a general rule is wrong. Statistically speaking, the hit points are dreadfully unlikely, as noted earlier...but more importantly, the Fighter must be doing something very wrong if his base damage and AC aren't better than a Rogue of the same level. Add in a DM that is catering to a thug-rogue build and we get "too unusual to mean a darn thing" as our result.

So, we have a very lucky player with a thug-rogue build and a very unlucky player with a commoner-fighter build...all this proves is that there is something seriously funky going on in your party, nothing about the classes themselves.

I disagree:
1d6 (rapier) +1d6 (sneak attack)/X levels + Str
1d6 (shortsword) + sneak attack again + 1 /2 Str
Beats 2d6 +1.5 Str anyday.

Only thing Fighter has on the rogue is hit chance is better.

Assuming level 5:
Rogue + Fighter
1d6 + Str + 3d6 /1d6 + 1/2 Str + 3d6: TWfing
Beats 2d6 + 1.5 Str easily
Sneak attack statistically deals more than Fighters: Fighters hit more often though. In the end it averages out due to Rogue missing..

Thinker
2007-09-08, 11:01 AM
I disagree:
1d6 (rapier) +1d6 (sneak attack)/X levels + Str
1d6 (shortsword) + sneak attack again + 1 /2 Str
Beats 2d6 +1.5 Str anyday.

Only thing Fighter has on the rogue is hit chance is better.

Assuming level 5:
Rogue + Fighter
1d6 + Str + 3d6 /1d6 + 1/2 Str + 3d6: TWfing
Beats 2d6 + 1.5 Str easily
Sneak attack statistically deals more than Fighters: Fighters hit more often though. In the end it averages out due to Rogue missing..

Erm you're completely discounting Power Attack which is the primary source of a fighter's damage. Also, hit chance is a pretty big deal: that's how you find out if any of that damage actually counted. The lower the AC the less it matters; it also doesn't matter if they can both only hit on a natural 20.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-08, 11:01 AM
You're forgetting that 99% of two-handed weapon using fighters will take Power Attack. Add that into the calculations and everything goes straight to hell. I've been looking for a fix to TWF for quite some time now.

EDIT: Damn it, late to the party.

EDIT EDIT: But furthermore, most TWF's don't have the same strength as THF's, since the TWF boys need really high dexterity.

Thinker
2007-09-08, 11:12 AM
EDIT EDIT: But furthermore, most TWF's don't have the same strength as THF's, since the TWF boys need really high dexterity.

Which is why we should just give all rogues straight 18s and all fighters straight 14s. Then you could totally see how much more powerful rogues are than fighters :smallwink:

Dervag
2007-09-08, 11:48 AM
Instead of making an opposed tumble check, make an attack, only the characters AC is its Tumble check.

That way, if it hits, you dont have to roll a seperate attack, and the fluff works.Addressed in Alexandrian's article.


i mean, when a guy tries to flip past me, i'm not gonna do a roll to hit him, i'm gonna smack him with whatever is in my hand.Isn't that what a normal attack roll does, too? Aren't pretty much all attack rolls some way of smacking an enemy with whatever is in the attacker's hand?


Tumble is not broken, and does not need to be balanced...[lists reasons]You know, I think you may very well be right about this [starts thinking of possible playtests of alternate Tumble rules]


...ooh, a DC100 tumble check lets you ignore ALL falling damage.Yes, but that's an epic-level challenge, and is more difficult than both walking on water (DC 90 Balance check), passing through a gap narrower than one's own head (DC 80 Escape Artist check), or swimming up a waterfall (DC 80 Swim check).

If a character can already use his skills walk on water, slip through a window smaller than his own head, and swim up a waterfall, then I don't think giving him the power to fall off a cliff and suffer no injury whatsoever is going to make him unbalanced if the abilities he already had don't.