|
When I converted my Monk over to the new rules, I had to recalculate the CMD several times to make sure I did it correctly. CMD = 36? without combat expertise added in? Yikers!
At 11th level, I have a CMB of 16, which means I would need a natural 20 to succeed against myself.
Wow...
But, prior to this, I was succeeding all the time with only (2) failures in the last 4-5 levels of play. So, I like it.
I know I wont be going against CMD 36 all the time, but needing to roll a 10 or higher on my d20 roll makes you think twice about the manuever, which is the main reason why this was implimented (IMO).
CC
Hey, if you want to be an expert tumbler then you have to focus your character on it just like everything else. You need the following things.
- Skill Focus (Acrobatics) +3/+6
- Acrobatic (feat) +2/+4
- Acrobatics as a class skill +3
- Boots of Elvenkind +5
Boots of Elvenkind. I knew I was forgeting something. I stand corrected then (well sit actually). I knew if I made a mistake on my numbers, someone would point it out.
Looking at the numbers again, I can live with needing both the Skill Focus and Acrobatic feats to be effective against some specialized monsters.
Still, I don't like deflection bonuses to AC making it harder to tumble past.
Made some good points about CR appropriate challenges
I see your point but think your example is likely to be a bit on the extreme side. Fire Elementals have really high dex and strength both, there aren't a lot of creatures at that CR that will have that high of a CMD. Fire elementals rely on their DEX for AC, I haven't chased down the stats but I think most creatures at that CR have much higher armor through NA and other things than relying on DEX. Fire Giant for example has NA 8 and Plate armor for another 8. In spite of it's higher strength the fire giant will have a lower CMD than the Fire Elemental. This makes sense to me. Fire elemental's DEX is 16 higher than the Fire Giants and the giants strength is only 6 higher... so likely CMD is 35 which is still tough but a lot more attainable.
In general these are both creatures which are focused around being deadly battlefield opponents. If you take a CR appropriate foe that is less focused on melee tumbling becomes a LOT easier. From some very casual poking around it looks like a typical CR 10-11 foe will have a CMD around 34-35.
So yeah, tumbling in general is much much tougher against tough opponents but will be attainable against lower level opponents.
(Ogre scratches his head)
I guess I'll have to see it in play, seems ok from my seat but I reserve the right to be wrong.
It's a rule that makes a lot of sense in more circumstances than any other rule I've seen. It might not be a perfect rule, but it's the best I've seen.
Flat DC? Way too easy to get around at even low levels and unrealistic.
15+BAB -> Doesnt' take into account agility or strength
CMD -> Sort of covers it all. Maybe the size bonus isn't perfect but larger creatures generally have more reach and more time to react as you move through their large area of control.
The biggest reason it's a good rule is because CMD is written on every creatures sheet and doesn't need to be calculated on the fly.
Good summary of all of the reasons I like this change, too.
Still, I don't like deflection bonuses to AC making it harder to tumble past.
I agree... but I'm not going to let the perfect get in the way of good enough when it means less stuff to remember at the table.
|
|
I still think the existing numbers could be used in reverse for a better tumble representation...CMD v. CMB rather than CMB v. CMD
Think about the hobbits running thru the legs of the orcs in LotR.
Of course, gnomes and dwarves are trained against giants, since they get a Dodge bonus to AC which according to the CM rules translates as bonuses to CMD as well...good call on that one Jason, that was something I wanted to see in the Beta... (BUT STILL DOESN'T TRANSLATE INTO TUMBLING PAST A GIANT)
Which is why in my games I will swtich it up for tumbles.
Another thing that mades deflection bonuses being added into CMD weird: You're fighting someone and decide to tumble away from the foe in order to avoid the AoO and your opponents deflection bonus helps him gain an AoO on you. It just doesn't seem right.
I still think the existing numbers could be used in reverse for a better tumble representation...CMD v. CMB rather than CMB v. CMD
Think about the hobbits running thru the legs of the orcs in LotR.
Of course, gnomes and dwarves are trained against giants, since they get a Dodge bonus to AC which according to the CM rules translates as bonuses to CMD as well...good call on that one Jason, that was something I wanted to see in the Beta... (BUT STILL DOESN'T TRANSLATE INTO TUMBLING PAST A GIANT)
Which is why in my games I will swtich it up for tumbles.
I like CMD a bit better because it incorporates Dexterity. ymmv
Tumbling in combat isn't all about flippy flippy you missed me, it also involves pushing past your opponent and forcing your way past. Otherwise a twig would stop the tumble check...Hey which would be easier to tumble past, a cat or a rhinoceros? That rhino is going to kill you... no chance at all. I can roll over the cat!
You seem to have tumbling confused with bull rush. And have never seen a single episode of American Gladiators...
There is one big point that everyone is missing:
Tumbling is not a Combat Maneuver.
also
Tumbling is NOT done to avoid an attack, it is done to avoid provoking Attack of Opportunity while moving through a threatened space. So no "fists are flying" as one fellow posted. It's similar to a spell caster rolling a concentration check to avoid and Attack of Opportunity in a threatened space.
What's the solution? Who knows, but I'm the kind of DM who likes combat to seem as realistic as possible, and very role-playable. If things don't make physical sense, then it wasn't well thought out. CMD does not apply to tumbling as written... it was just a convenient solution that wasn't play tested.
DC 15 + the HD of the opponent will have to do for now.
Doing cartwheels through an enemy's space as he tries to mash in your head with a mace...that can't be described as a combat maneuver?
I still think the existing numbers could be used in reverse for a better tumble representation...CMD v. CMB rather than CMB v. CMD
This would be doing rogues a great disservice. The raging elephant will have a much better CMB than the rogue will have a CMD. Reversing it makes things much more difficult for the rogue.
There's plenty of precedent for rogues using skills to defeat combat maneuvers: that is always how Escape Artist worked to escape a grapple.
This iteration of tumbling just adds Acrobatics to that list. It's much more advantageous for a rogue to try to use a skill check on some kind of combat maneuver.
There is one big point that everyone is missing:
Tumbling is not a Combat Maneuver.
also
Tumbling is NOT done to avoid an attack, it is done to avoid provoking Attack of Opportunity while moving through a threatened space. So no "fists are flying" as one fellow posted. It's similar to a spell caster rolling a concentration check to avoid and Attack of Opportunity in a threatened space.What's the solution? Who knows, but I'm the kind of DM who likes combat to seem as realistic as possible, and very role-playable. If things don't make physical sense, then it wasn't well thought out. CMD does not apply to tumbling as written... it was just a convenient solution that wasn't play tested.
DC 15 + the HD of the opponent will have to do for now.
So it's just as easy for a wizard with an 8 strength and 10 dex to get a swing in with his staff as a like leveled martial character? I can buy 15+BAB but basing it on HD is just wonky.
So it's just as easy for a wizard with an 8 strength and 10 dex to get a swing in with his staff as a like leveled martial character? I can buy 15+BAB but basing it on HD is just wonky.
I think both are wonky. I preferred the flat DC. They were high enough to keep characters investing in it for most of their careers if they wanted it to be a significant part of their tactical arsenal. Plus, I saw the ability to be on your guard enough to not present a free attack while moving was more of an internal issue rather than one so easily affected by your opponent.
My preference would have been to introduce a couple of tumble-foiling feats like the sort PF introduced for fighters to make casting defensively around them more difficult (like Disruptive).
So it's just as easy for a wizard with an 8 strength and 10 dex to get a swing in with his staff as a like leveled martial character? I can buy 15+BAB but basing it on HD is just wonky.I think both are wonky. I preferred the flat DC. They were high enough to keep characters investing in it for most of their careers if they wanted it to be a significant part of their tactical arsenal. Plus, I saw the ability to be on your guard enough to not present a free attack while moving was more of an internal issue rather than one so easily affected by your opponent.
My preference would have been to introduce a couple of tumble-foiling feats like the sort PF introduced for fighters to make casting defensively around them more difficult (like Disruptive).
Both true. Even when it was a single DC of 15, characters rarely put enough skill points in Tumble to make it effects. Generally just the Rogue. So it was never abused in 3.5, until PRGP combined it with Acrobatics.
DC 15 + BAB of the opponent sounds like a good approach.
This makes it potentially way more difficult than 3.5E but offsets the fact that tumble is no longer a separate skill. And it's simple.
Both true. Even when it was a single DC of 15, characters rarely put enough skill points in Tumble to make it effects. Generally just the Rogue. So it was never abused in 3.5, until PRGP combined it with Acrobatics.
Err what? Tumble was a great skill under 3.5 I loved it and used it a ton. At least three of the Pathfinder iconics had maxed out tumble and used it to great effect. Being mobile in combat is invaluable for nearly every class and with the flat 15 DC it was accessible even as a cross class skill.
Again, something so simple Paizo could have done better. I know they like the CMB thingy, but I'm kinda sick of it now.
Tumbling is not hard to do, but you have to have ranks in the skill to do it, normally, so it's an elitist action.
25 + BAB is fine.
I still think the existing numbers could be used in reverse for a better tumble representation...CMD v. CMB rather than CMB v. CMD
If you are suggesting using CMB as the target number for Tumble instead of CMD, I might have to try that.
It puts a defensive action (tumble) against an offensive trait (CMB). CMB is also modified by magic weapons and such, which would make success harder.
Using Valeros as examples, he would have DC of 36 (10 + CMB + 3 for weapon training +3 magic longsword + 3 for Weapon Focus feats).
Hmm...that is a bit of math. Maybe 15 + base CMB? That would be a DC 32 (though that seems low target number for his level).
I still think the existing numbers could be used in reverse for a better tumble representation...CMD v. CMB rather than CMB v. CMDIf you are suggesting using CMB as the target number for Tumble instead of CMD, I might have to try that.
It puts a defensive action (tumble) against an offensive trait (CMB). CMB is also modified by magic weapons and such, which would make success harder.
Using Valeros as examples, he would have DC of 36 (10 + CMB + 3 for weapon training +3 magic longsword + 3 for Weapon Focus feats).
Hmm...that is a bit of math. Maybe 15 + base CMB? That would be a DC 32 (though that seems low target number for his level).
My biggest issue with the abstraction is the size issue--whether or not I could personally tumble under an elephant, the 'dodgy halfling fellow rolls under the ogre' is a fun archetype throughout numerous cultures. Allowing that CMD is a defensive action, i'm inclined to ignore some of the Ring of Prot silliness...but I'd still rather reverse the size modifier for tumble DC's.
I did present my personal solution, incase you guys didn't notice.
Tumble DC = 5+opponent's total attack bonus (I've played with the numbers a bit and it seems a pretty good guage at all levels. It's marginally easier to tumble at very low levels than it was in 3.5, but it's a steady difficulty all the way up. Roughly 70% success to tumble around, 40ish % to tumble through or around at full speed, and 10ish% to tumble through their space at full speed, all this assuming the character is focused at tumbling. I like those odds. Also a note this means advantageous positions, like the high ground or flanking all make tumbling harder)
Yeah, the "positional" modifiers appear pretty odd in the rules-as-are ... like giving "higher ground" an advantage for tripping instead of sort of putting the opponents legs more out of reach. Wonky... CMB/CMD looks elegant at first glance, but less so in action.
Especially the strange grapple rules ( which basically make it impossible - as written - for a huge grappling creature to hold onto one opponent and doing anything else with its appendages, claw/maw/tail.. right, I guess a dragon is too busy chewing on the halfling to shred the opposition with its claws... despite being an ancient wyrm... after all grapple has become a standard action ).An abstraction which openly clashes with common sense is... not so elegant, I guess.
BTW, how do you read the DC-increase through additional threatening opponents tumbled past/away from ?
+2/additional opponent applied to each roll ( so say +4 for a total of 3 threats) or consecutively increased by +2 ... assuming one roll/opponent threatening ? Just wondering, though I tend to the first option.
My biggest issue with the abstraction is the size issue--whether or not I could personally tumble under an elephant, the 'dodgy halfling fellow rolls under the ogre' is a fun archetype throughout numerous cultures.
FWIW Halfings now get a +2 racial bonus to Acrobatics. Add in the +2 racial bonus to DEX and the dodgy halfling is significantly better at tumbling through the legs of the ogre than their clumsy hooman counterparts. Their slower more scholarly gnome counterparts are not so well off but should the ogre get a swing at them they get a +4 bonus to their AC. I think gnomes/ halflings are pretty well covered on this front.
Especially the strange grapple rules ( which basically make it impossible - as written - for a huge grappling creature to hold onto one opponent and doing anything else with its appendages, claw/maw/tail.. right, I guess a dragon is too busy chewing on the halfling to shred the opposition with its claws... despite being an ancient wyrm... after all grapple has become a standard action ). An abstraction which openly clashes with common sense is... not so elegant, I guess.
This seriously isn't that different than 3.5
The Core Grapple rules are the "base" rules.'Grappling creatures' as you put it almost always have easy ways around the normal rules - like getting free grapple attempts on successful melee attacks, being able to grapple/pin creatures WITHOUT being grappled themselves, ETC. Even when not given such big advantages as those, if a creature is supposed to be reasonably good at grappling, its easy to give them Greater Grapple, allowing a Grapple+Melee Attack or TWO Grapple attempts per round.
EDIT: About higher ground + Trip, I think it's completely reasonable to treat it like a Tiny creature sharing space with a Medium one, i.e. benefitting from Soft Cover (+4 AC), which combined with the 'normal' bonus for higher ground (+2 attack) yields... +2 AC. Elegant enough for me!
(the alternative is re-factoring the entire attack/AC system for each and every maneuver, right?)
My biggest issue with the abstraction is the size issue--whether or not I could personally tumble under an elephant, the 'dodgy halfling fellow rolls under the ogre' is a fun archetype throughout numerous cultures. Allowing that CMD is a defensive action, i'm inclined to ignore some of the Ring of Prot silliness...but I'd still rather reverse the size modifier for tumble DC's.
Most larger creatures have a longer reach and threaten a wider area. This could explain the size bonus to attacking a tumbler.
|
I did present my personal solution, incase you guys didn't notice.
Tumble DC = 5+opponent's total attack bonus (I've played with the numbers a bit and it seems a pretty good guage at all levels. It's marginally easier to tumble at very low levels than it was in 3.5, but it's a steady difficulty all the way up. Roughly 70% success to tumble around, 40ish % to tumble through or around at full speed, and 10ish% to tumble through their space at full speed, all this assuming the character is focused at tumbling. I like those odds. Also a note this means advantageous positions, like the high ground or flanking all make tumbling harder)
Wait wait wait...
BALANCED tumbling for you is a 70% chance of success?
Am I reading this right?
That seems way too easy to me. Like, bordering on the "I fall asleep tumbling around these guys..." easy. I think I prefer the new tumble rules, merely because it makes tumbling difficult. I think the most annoying thing ever was the fixed DC and Pathfinder was a step in the right direction, however the new rules I find are quite appropriate.
You have to remember combat maneuver defense is your ability to slip through grapples, or deflect the bullrush. Why should tumbling be any different? Its your opponent's ability to protect his square(s) from any "funny business" going on.
|
|
Dissinger, what's the point of having the advanced tumbling options, like tumbling at full speed, or tumbling through their space, or tumbling through their space AT full speed, if the simple tumble around at 1/2 speed is so damn hard to do?
(Additionally, as I said more than once in this thread, in my games each time you move out of a threatened square you have to tumble to avoid provoking until you've actually provoked an AoO for the move action.)
Because not all the time do you encounter monsters who have ridiculously high CMD.
Just today the PC's were fighting Gricks. These things have a CMD that is easily exploitable, despite their cr3 nature. The DR is really what makes them hard, well that and the five attacks they unload on a full attack. You could easily tumble past this creature with little to no problem, the problem comes in dealing enough damage to hurt them.
Not all CR appropriate creatures have tons of hit dice, and therefore, tons of STR and DEX.
Also, in reply to your edit, like I said you can house rule it how you want. I actually like the rules as printed, they make sense. Further I can see how they work and link up, CMD is you defending those 5 feet you occupy, be it from the rampaging goblin, or the rogue that's trying to tumble past you to hit your buddies.
|
|
Different styles for different players I suppose. I find 5+total attack bonus a perfect fit. It accounts for advantageous situations, and generates just the right odds for my tastes and my style.
CMD just doesn't work for me for tumble.
Fair enough. Perhaps it does work, especially when you consider that to be them taking 5 on an attack roll to hit you.
|
Well as James Jaconbs explained in a Combat Manuever thread the Manuevers (and Tumbling in this instance) aren't necessarily meant to be used willy nilly against Challenging foes. Tumble all you want through a crowd of mooks and minions, but their Anti-Paladin leader is another story!
--Vrock of Gibraltar
(Additionally, as I said more than once in this thread, in my games each time you move out of a threatened square you have to tumble to avoid provoking until you've actually provoked an AoO for the move action.)
You're complaining about Tumble being "eliminated" when you're using this sort of house rule? Your rule does far more to eliminate tumbling than anything Paizo has. Even with a 90% chance to succeed at tumbling through one square (which is useless -- just 5 foot step), you end up with a less than 60% chance to make it through 5 squares unscathed, and you better hope that you're not moving through anybody's space, because having to do so drops your chance of success from 59% to 11%, rather than from 90% to 65% like the Pathfinder rules state.
In other words, it's your own house rule screwing you over, not Paizo.
Just playtested Tumble DC = 15+ BAB and it worked perfectly. Very balanced. At 6th level, the only PCs using it were the Rogue and Ranger/archer, it was just too hard for any of the non-dex characters, but not too hard to keep the Rogue and Ranger from trying it.
Also my monster didn't bother trying to Tumble even though he was a rogue with a decent Acrobatics check, because it was simply too hard to get through multiple opponents. I found that to be nice and realistic.
So DC 15 + BAB is a good solution.
Just playtested Tumble DC = 15+ BAB and it worked perfectly. Very balanced. At 6th level, the only PCs using it were the Rogue and Ranger/archer, it was just too hard for any of the non-dex characters, but not too hard to keep the Rogue and Ranger from trying it.
Also my monster didn't bother trying to Tumble even though he was a rogue with a decent Acrobatics check, because it was simply too hard to get through multiple opponents. I found that to be nice and realistic.
So DC 15 + BAB is a good solution.
That sounds much simpler and easier, especially sense size could be counted ether way on things.
My personal choice for DC would be:
10+defenders reflex save bonus, as AoO is purely a reflexive act.
20+reflex for tumbling through defenders space.
|
|
My intent is to play with it as is
As another poster said, people are acting as if the monsters given here represent how this manuever works. When that isn't the case at all. You're not going to know monster to monster wheither it's easy or hard to tumble past them. I have a monk with a CMD of 14 at level one, for a character with a class skill in acrobatics and a decent dex they're going to have a +6 to a +9 modifier meaning they need a 5-8 on the dice to tumble past me. And people are saying that the new tumble mechanic is broken and to difficult because theirs been posted some high str creatures.
After a few games, where I've seen how the new tumble mechanic works then I'll houserule things if I feel it's necessary.
Two problems I think I have:
1. The tumbler's size doesn't seem to affect his maneuverability, while his opponents' sizes do. Shouldn't a small person tumbling past a small person be equivalent to a medium person tumbling past a medium person?
2. Dwarves can attempt to tumble in full plate mail, unlike all other races. Full Plate Mail dwarves being capable of deftly tumbling just sounds inherently wrong to me.
I understand that in point 2, dwarves suffer from armor check penalties, but this can mean there are several scenarios where dwarves get hit by fewer AoO than a monk or rogue who equally specializes in the practice.
...
The thing to remember about larger creatures is how much space and area they take up/threaten and to keep moving safely in that area. Its not always about getting past them but being quick enough to avoid their large fists. In the cat vs rhino analogy a cat will avoid a rhinos attacks all day long.
...
A cat will actually run like hell at the first oppotunity and won't have stupid thoughts about geting near to the rhino ;) but I aggree that it's all about not getting into the way
The cat will have some hard time getting around in case that the rhino will actually notice it and chose to prevent it from moving about. In this case it's actually all about the common sense (Yeah, I hear all the laughing already).
If a T-Rex actually percieves the halfling moving about, then he's in trouble, but if something else is geting his attention, the AoO is a pure game mechanic reaction quite unlike reality.
I have a more life-like example. I've spent some time on a farm and one of the things we had to do occasionally was chasing hens from the garden. The bird to human is a fine example of the size difference you are referring to here. Believe me that the birds had some hard time not getting whacked with a sprout broom whenever they tried to escape in the wrong way (within reach = AoO threatened area). I'd like to add that thing is quite unwieldy (imagine a polyester foam greatclub) ad that hens are pretty good runners.
I hope that your rogue tumbling around a giant swinging a well ballanced sword has the same favourable conditions.
Tumbling should't be easy aroung bigger opponents, but the GM should judge whether the reaction is actually appropriate. Heh, it should't be easy at all. Goodtumblers sill tend to be good at not geting hit anyway. I'm not suggesting any mechanic to rule this thing, just saying that it certainly shouldn't be easy to do against challenging foes even for tumbling-oriented PCs. My 2 cents.