Ok, this has always been one of my original beefs with 3.5 - at around level 3-4, tumbling and avoiding AoO's for spellcasting becomes a nuisance. Either remove it completely, or, even better - use that CMB for MORE stuff.
Make the DC for a Tumble check be 10+CMB, same thing for combat casting. Easy, fits well with the new "combat maneuvers" system and is REASONABLE!
I tend to counter tumbling by making it an opposed check against a base attack check. It pits a skilled acrobat against the skill of the combatant.
Same here. Using the formula:
d20 + BAB vs. Tumble / Concentration check
has really worked out well for my games.
For tumble, the check needs to be modified for circumstance:
d20+BAB +10 vs. Tumble (for tumbling through an opposed square)
d20+BAB +2 per threatening opponent vs. Tumble
or something similar.
Otherwise, Tumble and Concentration just become auto-successes at mid-levels.
|
Ok, this has always been one of my original beefs with 3.5 - at around level 3-4, tumbling and avoiding AoO's for spellcasting becomes a nuisance. Either remove it completely, or, even better - use that CMB for MORE stuff.
Make the DC for a Tumble check be 10+CMB, same thing for combat casting. Easy, fits well with the new "combat maneuvers" system and is REASONABLE!
Absolutlely! I house ruled Tumble to be 10 + Opponent's Reflex Save, and Concentration to be 10 + Spell Level + Opponent's BAB. But Using CMB instead is elegant, and gives the players some suspense! I support this change.
Our group playtested Tumble as 10 + Opponent's Ref save modifier, and it worked well. Some opponent's were easier to tumble by (giants), and others were not (NPC rogues).
Add me as another who uses Tumble vs. BAB. It's just too stupidly easy to avoid AoO's without such a rule.
Concentration vs. BAB is also an awesome idea, though personally I'd dumped the Concentration skill and made it just a Will save.
|
My groups has been using a similar rule of "CMB" for Tumbling, ala Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes, but that uses opposed roles, rather than a flat DC.
My only concern with rolling Acrobatics against CMB, is that larger enemies get bonuses to their CMB, while smaller ones get penalties-- is it harder to roll between the legs of a 80' giant, or a 2' child?
Again, I like the set-up, but the DC 15 for Tumble now is going to become 15+CMB and we have to include modifications for CMB vs. Acrobatics with regards to target size, which clutters things...
I'm sure there's an elegant solution out there somewhere...
Also, I don't see "casting defensively" mentioned in the Spellcraft skill description, has this requirement been removed from Pathffinder RPG?
|
|
My only concern with rolling Acrobatics against CMB, is that larger enemies get bonuses to their CMB, while smaller ones get penalties-- is it harder to roll between the legs of a 80' giant, or a 2' child?
You could say it's higher because of the giant's reach. I think 10 + Opponent's Ref save modifier is far more accurate, but CMB is simpler, so I'd be happy with some sort of justification to make my life easier as a DM...
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
My only concern with rolling Acrobatics against CMB, is that larger enemies get bonuses to their CMB, while smaller ones get penalties-- is it harder to roll between the legs of a 80' giant, or a 2' child?
Agreed, but I think that here the simplicity of using a single mechanic outweighs the realism concerns. Most opponents will be the same size or larger, anyway, and you can just rationalize that they're better at it because otherwise it'd be too easy for the PCs ;)
I was about to make a comment about halflings being worse at tumbling, but then I realized that the halfling in question would be making an Acrobatics check, which wouldn't take CMB into account. D'oh!
|
I used Monte Cook's "vs. attack bonus" house rule for Tumble and defensive casting for a while and found it added little to my games. I want rogues to be able to tumble in for sneak attacks. I want wizards to be able to cast spells.
Among other things, AoOs are about the defender dropping his guard, not about the attacker's skill in penetrating it. And the tumbling defender should only drop his guard if he's not very good at Tumble. (And ditto for defensive casting.)
If changing the rule, I'd say make Tumbling to avoid AoOs an automatic, improving class feature. (Say, avoid AoOs while tumbling from one opponent per four levels.) The problem with that is that it takes that ability away from other classes who might otherwise make the skill investment.
So I say keep Tumble to avoid AoOs, and defensive casting, as relatively easy skill checks.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Put me on the side of the existing mechanic - AoOs being about dropping guard is accurate. It would be nice to have abilities that raised the DC of tumbling/concentrating against you, though. Persistent Foe or some such.
In terms of AoOs, I have always found it very mechnically annoying that being helpless doesn't provoke - how much more can you drop your defenses, exactly? That's more of an argument for dropping AoOs altogther, though, or taking the plunge making hold person / sleep that much more lethal.
Someone pointed out a disparity with CMB going up for larger creatures. To me it's not about how easy it is to tumble between the legs of a Titan, but about the fact that when he smacks down his foot on you, he covers a small apartment in area. He doesn't need to be the least bit accurate, just hit the general area where you are. Thus, the CMB going up, is still logical for larger creatures. The tumbling roll is not for "going between his legs" its for "not being stomped on". :D
Contributor
|
Here's my compromise suggestion:
Treat it like the mounted combat feat.
How well you roll on your concentration/tumble check determines how well you keep your guard up for the AoO.
Your opponent still gets the Attack of Opportunity, but your AC for that attack is equal to your tumble or concentration roll (unless your base AC is already higher.
I also like the idea that you can use tumble to make your opponents waste their AoO so the clumsy fighter can get past too.
I also really like DC = 10+CMB for Acrobatic checks to tumble and Spellcraft checks to cast defensively.
Actually, this could be an effective way to nerf the "tumble" aspect of acrobatics.
There has been a lot of talk on these boards about eliminating cross-class skills, and/or giving all classes more options for skill choices. One concern was that in either of these situations, everyone would suddenly take Acrobatics, as it is the skill that most directly affects combat.
By increasing the DC of tumbling past an opponent, to 15 + CMB, the chance of somebody at the "cross-classed" level pulling off a successful tumble becomes much lower, while the chance of a Rogue (who is probably at the "classed" level, and probably has a high Dex modifier) succeeding becomes smaller, but not insurmountable.
A first-level rogue with 4 ranks (or effective ranks) in Acrobatics, and a +3 Dex would have a total bonus of +7, giving her a 45% chance of succeeding against a human fighter of equal level with a +3 Str). Her chances of succeeding against a wizard with a +0 CMB would obviously be much higher (70%).
By the same token, a sorcerer with a +1 Dex bonus, and only two "ranks" from skills would succeed against the fighter only 25% of the time, and the wizard only 45% of the time.
The rogue's trained Acrobatics skill would go up by 1/level, keeping him on par with a fighter's 1/level CMB increase, but making her better at tumbling past classes without a +1/level BAB progression. Meanwhile, the sorcerer, whose acrobatics advance only at +1/2 levels would keep pace with the wizard (at 45%) but quickly find tumbling around fighters an improbable goal.
|
|
I also really like DC = 10+CMB for Acrobatic checks to tumble and Spellcraft checks to cast defensively.
Actually, this could be an effective way to nerf the "tumble" aspect of acrobatics.
There has been a lot of talk on these boards about eliminating cross-class skills, and/or giving all classes more options for skill choices. One concern was that in either of these situations, everyone would suddenly take Acrobatics, as it is the skill that most directly affects combat.
By increasing the DC of tumbling past an opponent, to 15 + CMB, the chance of somebody at the "cross-classed" level pulling off a successful tumble becomes much lower, while the chance of a Rogue (who is probably at the "classed" level, and probably has a high Dex modifier) succeeding becomes smaller, but not insurmountable.
A first-level rogue with 4 ranks (or effective ranks) in Acrobatics, and a +3 Dex would have a total bonus of +7, giving her a 45% chance of succeeding against a human fighter of equal level with a +3 Str). Her chances of succeeding against a wizard with a +0 CMB would obviously be much higher (70%).
By the same token, a sorcerer with a +1 Dex bonus, and only two "ranks" from skills would succeed against the fighter only 25% of the time, and the wizard only 45% of the time.
The rogue's trained Acrobatics skill would go up by 1/level, keeping him on par with a fighter's 1/level CMB increase, but making her better at tumbling past classes without a +1/level BAB progression. Meanwhile, the sorcerer, whose acrobatics advance only at +1/2 levels would keep pace with the wizard (at 45%) but quickly find tumbling around fighters an improbable goal.
I've never been a fan of static DCs. It should be harder to tumble past the greatest warrior in the realm than a novice. On the other hand, if the attack is due to not maintaining an adedquate guard, then most anyone should be able to 'circle an opponent warily' without the dreaded AoO. So, mustly I favor tying it to the opponent's BAB, and the idea of making the tumble check the AC for an AoO is, frankly, awesome.
I also really like DC = 10+CMB for Acrobatic checks to tumble and Spellcraft checks to cast defensively.I've found that ideas like this look good on paper, but can lead to unsatisfying situations for players. Who wants to play the rogue who's trapped in the corner all fight or the wizard who loses three spells in a row because the monsters are big and strong (and thus have high CMBs)?
Consider, for example, a party fighting a kraken. A kraken has sixty foot reach and CMB +44. If the wizard wants to participate in the fight, he'd better hope he can either get sixty feet away or roll a DC 54 Spellcraft check. Otherwise, he just gets to watch his every spell fail before it even gets cast as the kraken slaps him around in tune to the sound of its gurgling, inhuman laughter.
Isn't the CMB of a Kraken +35 (+12 Strength, +20 Base Attack Bonus, +3 size) although that change doesn't seem to be very helpful for the mage to have to make a DC 45 Spellcraft check around 10-ish level either.
Why not do Tumble v. DC 15 or CMB, whichever is higher?
As for casting defensively... DC 15+SL or CMB, whichever is higher... but this takes more time to figure out, and loses some simplicity... but it gives you some variables. By way of comparison... I'm currently playing a lvl 9 gnome wizard with a spellcraft of +22... so I'd need to roll a 14 to cast defensively in the case of that CMB 36 monster. Odds aren't in favor of pulling off the spell, but it's not impossible.
|
|
I too have always run into this problem and thought about it. The character can only move at Half his speed (so in most cases 15 feet) and the DC increase by 2 for every opponent past the first. So even if the Tumbling rogue can get past one opponent easily, if the enemies are closer together, this becomes harder. Now I'm not saying the current tumble is perfect. If this were to change, I would say it could be against the creature's CMB without any additional modifiers. For casting on the defensive, I think it just should be dropped. Casters don't need this extra advantage IMO. But I'm willing to try something new with these or just keep them as is.
Isn't the CMB of a Kraken +35 (+12 Strength, +20 Base Attack Bonus, +3 size) although that change doesn't seem to be very helpful for the mage to have to make a DC 45 Spellcraft check around 10-ish level either.I also really like DC = 10+CMB for Acrobatic checks to tumble and Spellcraft checks to cast defensively.I've found that ideas like this look good on paper, but can lead to unsatisfying situations for players. Who wants to play the rogue who's trapped in the corner all fight or the wizard who loses three spells in a row because the monsters are big and strong (and thus have high CMBs)?
Consider, for example, a party fighting a kraken. A kraken has sixty foot reach and CMB +44. If the wizard wants to participate in the fight, he'd better hope he can either get sixty feet away or roll a DC 54 Spellcraft check. Otherwise, he just gets to watch his every spell fail before it even gets cast as the kraken slaps him around in tune to the sound of its gurgling, inhuman laughter.
I double-checked; its +36 (Gargantuan gives you +4 size bonus).
I support 10 + CMB for these checks.
That said, I do think it would be hard to rationalize this system as it stands now. One would think a small creature would have an easier time tumbling past a giant than, say, another giant.
I don't think opposed checks are a good idea. There's been a tendency in PFRPG to move away from these sorts of checks, and move towards scaled DCs. Similarly, there is also a trend towards standardization (i.e., class hit die). I think these are good trends, and I don't think opposed rolls fit very well into them.
