Acrobats to move through threatened squares needs to be an opposed check


Skills & Feats

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am opposed to this.

1. It goes in the wrong direction, rather than making combat faster, it would take a bit longer, what with needing to find out a bit of info before you make your check.

2. As has been mentioned, there is a combat feat that allows you to avoid AoO for movement. You can use Mobility to run past the ancient red dragon and still get off an attack. There is no scaling there. Why would it be harder for an acrobatic individual to get past?

3. The acrobatic individual is most likely already giving up some armor in order to stay nimble, why penalize them more?

4. The acrobatic individual has most likely spent a fair number of skill points to be that way. Learning the best way to move around, to be unpredictable, to avoid the attack. This would be ignored if there was some kind of scaling.

5. There are already modifiers to acrobatics for terrain. I think that most forget to apply them, as the DC for using acrobatics to tumble thru/under a dragon in a cavern goes to 30. That means that there is a chance that even for a 20th level rogue to not succeed (20 skill, 5 dex, 3 class = 28), so a failure on a 1. Failure on a 6 if you have to use acrobatics to move your full move, which is often the case if you are trying to move under the dragon.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Repairman Jack wrote:
A DM in my group tried this rule. It brought up a lot of questions. Should a magic sword make it more difficult to tumble through a threatened square? Or a light weapon? Should a high strength make it harder to tumble past? Tumbles succeded less than one in ten. We dropped the rule very quickly. It seemed like avoiding an attack in order to avoid an attack.

Fantastic feedback. That's kind of what I was afraid of.

Repairman Jack wrote:
That said, BAB is a function of size as well as combat experience.

A monster's BAB is a function of its type and HD. The next line in its entry, Attack, includes Size, Str, Dex, etc. BAB is a good scaling factor because its a pretty pure indicator of fighting ability. Whether or not one wants to scale, that's another question. Me? I like scaling. I just want to find the simplest, most logical and most consistent way of doing it.


Be very careful about "scaling" skills because they have the nasty habit of making a character actually WORSE as they level unles they assign skills to it (which is in direct contrast to the level based nature of DnD)

While there's a great love for skill points, I find it only works for relatively low static DCs and not for scaling skills like Intimidate...

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am opposed to this, and completely agree with Mistwalker.

Mistwalker wrote:

3. The acrobatic individual is most likely already giving up some armor in order to stay nimble, why penalize them more?

4. The acrobatic individual has most likely spent a fair number of skill points to be that way.

Everyone has their favourite class, mine is the Monk.

Monks suffer MAD (Multiple Ability Dependency), requiring them to spread their precious ability points among physical attributes, as well as Wisdom, leaving my Living Greyhawk Half-orc Monk with a -2 Intelligence modifier, and only TWO skill points per level - which I spend on Jump and Tumble.

At lower levels, Tumble often isn't worth the risk. If you invest in skill ranks, Tumble becomes viable at mid-levels. By the time you achieve immunity to tumbling through threatened squares or through enemy squares, your rogues are hiding in shadows, your casters are flying, teleporting or invisible.

Every class has it's tricks, whether they be spells, knowledge(everything), or sneak attack. One of the Monk's roles is being a movement specialist, and Tumble plays a key role in this.

Of all the things 3.5 that Pathfinder RPG has opportunity to address - low level survivability, 15 minute adventuring day, grappling - Tumble never crossed my mind as a mechanic that required "fixing".


Mistwalker wrote:
1. It goes in the wrong direction, rather than making combat faster, it would take a bit longer, what with needing to find out a bit of info before you make your check.

Actually, you wouldn't know that. You'd have to guess. It wouldn't be a foregone conclusion any more. Makes things more interesting.

Mistwalker wrote:


2. As has been mentioned, there is a combat feat that allows you to avoid AoO for movement. You can use Mobility to run past the ancient red dragon and still get off an attack. There is no scaling there. Why would it be harder for an acrobatic individual to get past?

I'd change Mobility back into a regular feat and say that it lets you tumble full-speed without penalty.

Otherwise, you're right: You might as well keep tumble the way it was.

Mistwalker wrote:


3. The acrobatic individual is most likely already giving up some armor in order to stay nimble, why penalize them more?

I'd say he mainly did that because he can't use the heavier armour, and with his high dex, he would be stifled in it, anyway.

Mistwalker wrote:


4. The acrobatic individual has most likely spent a fair number of skill points to be that way.

Actually, that usually isn't the case: They'll often get just enough to have a total bonus of 14 so they won't have to roll. That's probably no more than 1 skill rank per level up to level 7, and they get probably 6 points at least, maybe twice as much.

It's not like he geared his whole character just to be able to tumble.

Mistwalker wrote:


That means that there is a chance that even for a 20th level rogue to not succeed (20 skill, 5 dex, 3 class = 28), so a failure on a 1. Failure on a 6 if you have to use acrobatics to move your full move, which is often the case if you are trying to move under the dragon.

Things like that should not be foregone conclusions.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
1. It goes in the wrong direction, rather than making combat faster, it would take a bit longer, what with needing to find out a bit of info before you make your check.
Actually, you wouldn't know that. You'd have to guess. It wouldn't be a foregone conclusion any more. Makes things more interesting.

Well, if you make the roll and then ask the DM if you passed, or if you asked the DM what the modifier was so that you would know if you met it or not when you roll, it still takes more time, slows down the games.

KaeYoss wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


3. The acrobatic individual is most likely already giving up some armor in order to stay nimble, why penalize them more?
I'd say he mainly did that because he can't use the heavier armour, and with his high dex, he would be stifled in it, anyway.

I have played acrobatic fighters, that never went past a chain shirt. Doing otherwise was against the whole concept of those chars. And I have seen other do it to. Swashbuckler, pirate, Robin Hood, etc...

KaeYoss wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


4. The acrobatic individual has most likely spent a fair number of skill points to be that way.
Actually, that usually isn't the case: They'll often get just enough to have a total bonus of 14 so they won't have to roll. That's probably no more than 1 skill rank per level up to level 7, and they get probably 6 points at least, maybe twice as much.

Hmmm, not every fight happens on a smooth floor. If you stop at +14 tumble (combination of skill ranks, attributes and other abilities), you run the serious risk of not being successful if you are on/in kind of terrain. And that ignores the need for tumbling thru the enemy occupied squares.

Silver Crusade

Something I don't think has been mentioned in this thread thusfar is that depending on the method used, this could actually make tumbling EASIER and a more viable tactical approach for low level rogues (and monks!).

For example: A 3.5 1st Level rouge with 16 Dex and maxed Tumble will have a tumble check of +7. To Tumble past a 1st level Fighter under standard 3.5 (assuming no terrain effects), he would need to roll an 8 to meet the DC of 15. This equivocates to a 65% chance of success – good, but not great for a rogue with (probably) single digit hp.

Using a DC of 10+targets BAB (in this case +1), the target DC is 11, meaning the rogue now only needs a 4 to meet the DC. This equivocates to an 85% chance of success – much more viable for our 1st level rouge pal.

Haven't carried out the math to higher levels yet, but I'm thinking it will stay roughly the same. The end effect will be the rogue (or monk) will have a slightly tougher time tumbling past combat focused characters (fighters/paladins/rangers/combat monsters)and a much easier time tumbling past arcane focused types (wizards/spell heavy monsters).

BTW - Everybody, great discussion. Lots of good thoughts here.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have to throw my hat into the ring on the side of the static DC for tumble. I am running a campaign in which 3 of the PCs have invested substantially in Tumble. The DCs are high enough with certain situations that the investment and use as a tactic become a substantial element of the character. I wouldn't want to see that highly considered investment continually dampened in high level play due to high BAB monsters.

Tying an opposed check of some sort to BAB, I think, is a bad idea. Huge and slow creatures that happen to have a lot of hit points shouldn't be harder to tumble past than quicker and more agile opponents. I'd be far more in favor of certain feats that negate a tumbler's advantage like the Mage-killer type one that prevents a spellcaster from casting defensively. I'd add it to the Dodge-Mobility tree and/or combat reflexes, the idea being the best ones to combat tumblers are highly trained to do so. That will make it fairly rare in routine encounters, but available when the BBEG wants to hire some muscle to protect him from the well-known tumbling heroes out to get him.

Ultimately, tumbling to avoid AoO just means that you've learned how to move so that you don't provide extra openings for a sucker hit. I'd compare that more to learning how to cast a spell without providing a similar opening and thus make it a static roll, not based on the opponent. You can either do it, or you can't.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Bill Dunn makes a good point:

Bill Dunn wrote:
Ultimately, tumbling to avoid AoO just means that you've learned how to move so that you don't provide extra openings for a sucker hit. I'd compare that more to learning how to cast a spell without providing a similar opening and thus make it a static roll, not based on the opponent. You can either do it, or you can't.

I have a question for everyone arguing to factor BAB into the DC of Tumble checks through an enemy's threatened square to avoid Attacks of Opportunity:

Q: Would you similarly argue to factor BAB into the DC of Concentration checks to cast a spell in an enemy's threatened square to avoid Attacks of Opportunity?

Wouldn't it be funny if the Tumble-grumps are all closet-Casters, and back down once the fight it taken to their turf?

Liberty's Edge

DarkWhite wrote:


I have a question for everyone arguing to factor BAB into the DC of Tumble checks through an enemy's threatened square to avoid Attacks of Opportunity:

Q: Would you similarly argue to factor BAB into the DC of Concentration checks to cast a spell in an enemy's threatened square to avoid Attacks of Opportunity?

Wouldn't it be funny if the Tumble-grumps are all closet-Casters, and back down once the fight it taken to their turf?

Absolutely! If you scroll through the other posts, you'll see that that was the crux of my conversation when this whole thread started. Both are house rules I've been using for years.

DC=10+BAB (+2 for each additional opponent) for Tumble
DC=10+BAB+level of spell (+2 for each additional oppenent) for Tumble

I'm not a closet caster or closet tumbler - just a DM that likes thinks balanced.

Robert


Mistwalker wrote:


Well, if you make the roll and then ask the DM if you passed, or if you asked the DM what the modifier was so that you would know if you met it or not when you roll, it still takes more time, slows down the games.

Neglegible.

It's just like attack rolls.

"Make a tumble check"
"23"
"BAM!"

I wouldn't say that's exactly a gamestopper.

Mistwalker wrote:


I have played acrobatic fighters, that never went past a chain shirt. Doing otherwise was against the whole concept of those chars. And I have seen other do it to. Swashbuckler, pirate, Robin Hood, etc...

Robin Hood's a rogue. Swashbucklers are probably fighter/rogues, so are pirates. And your acrobatic fighter might have done well to get some rogue levels himself.


Hey just one idea/question at the side:

I thought about making a feat or a acrobatics use to let you substitute your AC vs. a acrobatics-check.
But if you are hit nevertheless, you fall prone.
Would this be too powerful?

(Sidenote: AC in my system: 10+BAB+DEX+Dodge+shield+size, Armor improves toughness-value to resist damage)


DarkWhite wrote:

Bill Dunn makes a good point:

Bill Dunn wrote:
Ultimately, tumbling to avoid AoO just means that you've learned how to move so that you don't provide extra openings for a sucker hit. I'd compare that more to learning how to cast a spell without providing a similar opening and thus make it a static roll, not based on the opponent. You can either do it, or you can't.

And it's impossible for the enemy to train to exploit the weaknesses in that approach? There's no such thing as a perfect defense.

DarkWhite wrote:

I have a question for everyone arguing to factor BAB into the DC of Tumble checks through an enemy's threatened square to avoid Attacks of Opportunity:

Q: Would you similarly argue to factor BAB into the DC of Concentration checks to cast a spell in an enemy's threatened square to avoid Attacks of Opportunity?

Absolutely.

DarkWhite wrote:
Wouldn't it be funny if the Tumble-grumps are all closet-Casters, and back down once the fight it taken to their turf?

Won't it be funny when your attitude comes back and gets egg all over your face because you're totally wrong? People are opposed to Tumble being a static DC because it's a broken game mechanic, not because they're "closet-Casters".


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
Robin Hood's a rogue. Swashbucklers are probably fighter/rogues, so are pirates. And your acrobatic fighter might have done well to get some rogue levels himself.

Well, in the last movie, Robin Hood was a knight. In several fantasy books, pirates as depicted as fighters, not rogues -yes the rob for a living, but they use the brute approach, not the subtle one.

As well, I didn't want to multi-class, so no rogue levels.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
People are opposed to Tumble being a static DC because it's a broken game mechanic, not because they're "closet-Casters".

So are you also proposing that Mobility be removed?

It is easier to get that feat than it is to get enough ranks in acrobatics to have a good chance of success (and not the 100% that Mobility gives you)

I do believe that several of us do not see it as broken, and would prefer to keep it as it is.


I could see 10 + the highest BAB +2 for each opponent. Not as hard as you might think and the modifiers still apply from 3.5. Should the fall DC be 10 +1 per 10 feet fallen? I know I had a 12th level character maxed out on tumble in LG. 15 ranks +8 Dex +2 Synergy and Skill Mastery from Thief Acrobat giving him a 35 without rolling. And I used it all the time.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Zurai wrote:


And it's impossible for the enemy to train to exploit the weaknesses in that approach? There's no such thing as a perfect defense.

Notice the part where I suggest a feat that negates the tumbling immunity rather like the mage-killer type one that prevents casting on the defensive?


Mistwalker wrote:

So are you also proposing that Mobility be removed?

It is easier to get that feat than it is to get enough ranks in acrobatics to have a good chance of success (and not the 100% that Mobility gives you)

Mobility is a Combat Feat with a Combat Feat pre-req. That means, no matter what, you have a feat you cannot use. Also, it's really not at all hard to get to 14 Acrobatics. Hell, you're over halfway there with a decent Dex plus the class skill bonus and your first rank at level 1. A level 1 Halfling would have a 75% chance to avoid AoOs from a level 1,000,000 fighter (1 rank, +3 class skill, +4 Dex, +2 Racial = +10 Acrobatics) for the cost of a single skill rank. That's broken.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Mobility is a Combat Feat with a Combat Feat pre-req. That means, no matter what, you have a feat you cannot use. Also, it's really not at all hard to get to 14 Acrobatics. Hell, you're over halfway there with a decent Dex plus the class skill bonus and your first rank at level 1. A level 1 Halfling would have a 75% chance to avoid AoOs from a level 1,000,000 fighter (1 rank, +3 class skill, +4 Dex, +2 Racial = +10 Acrobatics) for the cost of a single skill rank. That's broken.

I'm thinking "broken" is overstating the case just a bit. Somehow, in all my 3.5 games, this has utterly failed to be a problem for me or my players.

Mobility is enough to grant AC (infinite), because you don't get to attack them. Admittedly a 1st level halfling rogue can't do it, but a 1st level halfing fighter could, or a 1st level human rogue. With Mobility on the table, I just can't see why a fixed tumbling DC is such a terrible thing.

Liberty's Edge

Changing the DC for a Tumble check will have some odd interplay with the Knight's Vigilant Defender ability, which adds their class level to the DC of the check.


Mistwalker wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Robin Hood's a rogue. Swashbucklers are probably fighter/rogues, so are pirates. And your acrobatic fighter might have done well to get some rogue levels himself.
Well, in the last movie, Robin Hood was a knight.

I have always pictured him as a ranger... I believe he's in the list of ranger's inspirations in the AD&D 2E PH...


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:

So are you also proposing that Mobility be removed?

It is easier to get that feat than it is to get enough ranks in acrobatics to have a good chance of success (and not the 100% that Mobility gives you)
Mobility is a Combat Feat with a Combat Feat pre-req. That means, no matter what, you have a feat you cannot use. Also, it's really not at all hard to get to 14 Acrobatics. Hell, you're over halfway there with a decent Dex plus the class skill bonus and your first rank at level 1. A level 1 Halfling would have a 75% chance to avoid AoOs from a level 1,000,000 fighter (1 rank, +3 class skill, +4 Dex, +2 Racial = +10 Acrobatics) for the cost of a single skill rank. That's broken.

I too think that you are overstating thing just a bit.

Shisumo is correct, a fighter can have Mobility at 1st level, hence 100% chance to avoid AoO, in all terrain types. While your halfling only has a 75% chance on a flat and clear surface.

As well, do all of your combats happen in flat, obstacle free environment? I know that it is a rare fight in my campaign that doesn't have some kind of terrain modifier. If nothing else, the bodies that tend to accumulate in fights, would increase the DC for tumbling.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Keldarth wrote:
I have always pictured him as a ranger... I believe he's in the list of ranger's inspirations in the AD&D 2E PH...

:)

either way, not a rogue


Mistwalker wrote:
Shisumo is correct, a fighter can have Mobility at 1st level, hence 100% chance to avoid AoO, in all terrain types. While your halfling only has a 75% chance on a flat and clear surface.

The fighter has also sacrificed something for it. The halfling really hasn't. The fighter has spent 2 feats (one of which is essentially worthless if he intends to use Mobility much, since both Mobility and Dodge are Combat Feats and you can only use one Combat Feat per round) to gain a slightly improved ability that the halfling spent a single skill point for. If the Halfling is a rogue, chances are he has nothing better to spend his skill points on anyhow, so it's not like it's a hardship for him to take Acrobatics, especially since it includes Jump now.

Basically, it's a "no s+&!, Sherlock" skill. It's an auto-win against certain situations.

Auto-wins are bad game design. Nothing should be automatic unless there's a vast difference in power. Cloudkill is OK for auto-killing very weak creatures because there's a pretty big power gulf in the favor of whoever cast the Cloudkill. 1 rank of Acrobatics is NOT a big power gulf in favor of the level 1 halfling rogue vs the level <arbitrarily huge> AoO-based fighter.

And, for the record, yes I'm opposed to Mobility as it stands as well - but it is at least slightly better balanced.

Liberty's Edge

Zurai wrote:


The fighter has also sacrificed something for it. The halfling really hasn't. The fighter has spent 2 feats (one of which is essentially worthless if he intends to use Mobility much, since both Mobility and Dodge are Combat Feats and you can only use one Combat Feat per round) to gain a slightly improved ability that the halfling spent a single skill point for. If the Halfling is a rogue, chances are he has nothing better to spend his skill points on anyhow, so it's not like it's a hardship for him to take Acrobatics, especially since it includes Jump now.

Basically, it's a "no s&!@, Sherlock" skill. It's an auto-win against certain situations.

Auto-wins are bad game design. Nothing should be automatic unless there's a vast difference in power. Cloudkill is OK for auto-killing very weak creatures because there's a pretty big power gulf in the favor of whoever cast the Cloudkill. 1 rank of Acrobatics is NOT a big power gulf in favor of the level 1 halfling rogue vs the level <arbitrarily huge> AoO-based fighter.

And, for the record, yes I'm opposed to Mobility as it stands as well - but it is at least slightly better balanced.

I agree with this assessment. Especially the part about one of the feats not working when using the other. Most combat feats remain inert since you can only have one being used at at time.

Also - speaking of mobility - I know it prevents AoO when moving - does moving include "standing up from prone"?

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The hypothetical halfling in question is avoiding AoOs from a single target 80% of the time. That means s/he's provoking that AoO 20% of the time, which is dangerous in the extreme - additional actions are hands-down the strongest source of power in d20, and s/he'd be offering one to the opponent one time out of every five. S/he'd also be moving a grand total of 10 ft, which is enough to make me wonder why the heck s/he bothered, since you can 5 ft step all day without ever causing anyone to attack. (Gosh, that seems like it should be broken too...) Note too that if there is a second opponent, the probability bcomes 30% that you've handed out two extra actions, and if you happen to be facing four or more, you've crossed the line into "kill me, please" territory.

Mobility has none of those problems. With Mobility, you can do a flat-out sprint between two rows of a dozen royal guardsmen each and still whack the king with no one able to stop you.

Moreover, you still haven't shown an actual problem here. Do you know what happens when you make it harder for people to move around? They stop moving. The game is already in need of more mobility (small m). Any change that makes it more difficult to shift positions on the battlefield is going to make the game less fun to play, as everyone will basically run up to one another and not move again for the remainder of the fight.


Shisumo wrote:
Mobility has none of those problems. With Mobility, you can do a flat-out sprint between two rows of a dozen royal guardsmen each and still whack the king with no one able to stop you.

And I quote myself from my most recent post: "And, for the record, yes I'm opposed to Mobility as it stands as well - but it is at least slightly better balanced." Thank you for making my point for me.

Shisumo wrote:
Moreover, you still haven't shown an actual problem here.

Yes, I have. You've just chosen to ignore it.

Shisumo wrote:
Do you know what happens when you make it harder for people to move around? They stop moving. The game is already in need of more mobility (small m). Any change that makes it more difficult to shift positions on the battlefield is going to make the game less fun to play, as everyone will basically run up to one another and not move again for the remainder of the fight.

Then it's your position that there shouldn't be any AoOs for movement and you should be able to charge right past the fighter and hit the wizard he's helpless to protect?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
A level 1 Halfling would have a 75% chance to avoid AoOs from a level 1,000,000 fighter (1 rank, +3 class skill, +4 Dex, +2 Racial = +10 Acrobatics) for the cost of a single skill rank. That's broken.

It's not broken when you realize, under the 3.5 rules, that the halfling only goes from being able to take a 5 ft step without risking AoO to a 10 ft move action. THe extra 5 ft isn't a huge problem.

Now, under PFrpg and the acrobatics skill, there's no mention of moving around via tumble at half vs full movement rate. If it's true that full speed tumble no longer adds 10 to the DC, then I will agree that the DC 15 is too low. I still don't think it should have anything to do with the opponent's BAB, though. THAT I believe would be the wrong mechanic for increasing the DC.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Moreover, you still haven't shown an actual problem here.
Yes, I have. You've just chosen to ignore it.

I'm going to ignore the rest of this post, because it's just straw man arguments, but this part is actually important.

No, you really haven't shown a problem. What you've done is describe a situation, and then you have labeled it broken. The part that's missing is the part where you explain why the situation is actually a problem for gameplay. You haven't shown any actual drawback for the situation, and so there's no problem here at this point.

If you can somehow demonstrate an issue that would make the situation actually problematic for the playing experience, it would be different. But since I've had a number of Tumble-focused characters in my games over the last several years, and have yet to run into a problem, I'm more than a bit skeptical that one is going to show up.


Add me to the supporters list.

I have never understood why that was a fixed DC. Apparently an untrained rookie is just as easy to evade as a battle-hardened veteran.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rhavin wrote:

Add me to the supporters list.

I have never understood why that was a fixed DC. Apparently an untrained rookie is just as easy to evade as a battle-hardened veteran.

Wrong spin. The battle-hardened veteran is most certainly not easier to evade since his attack bonus is much higher and will hit your AC.

The question is: should one or the other be easier to drop your guard against? That's what provoking an AoO means - it means you drop your guard by doing something that distracts from combat and that's far more of an inherent mental or physical process.

Liberty's Edge

Robert Brambley wrote:


Also - speaking of mobility - I know it prevents AoO when moving - does moving include "standing up from prone"?

Robert

Alot of good discussion on this topic. I see both sides of the arguement, but for me - I still think that the fixed DC is not appropriate when most everything else is opposed check or roll, and when you consider that the ones skill to tumble should be compared to ones martial prowess; not just luck.

That being said: I havent' really seen anyone tackle this question I posed a while ago....?

Robert


That depends if a move action is considered moving. Technically getting a potion from your bag is a move action and provokes an AoO, would that be eliminated by Mobility? Then again, standing up is closer to actual movement than rooting through a bag.

Count me in for the "don't change it" side. AoO is ALL about how open you are leaving yourself. Unless someone specifically has control over you, YOU are the only person that determines how open you are leaving yourself.

Moving through multiple creatures space divides your focus, so yeah... increased DC vs multiple opponents makes sense. But the skill of the attacker isn't coming into play at all.

IF you leave yourself open, THEN the skill of the attacker comes into play (his attack bonus vs your AC). Otherwise, if you aren't leaving yourself open, then why are your enemies even part of the equation. They aren't forcing openings against you.

Liberty's Edge

Kaisoku wrote:

But the skill of the attacker isn't coming into play at all.

IF you leave yourself open, THEN the skill of the attacker comes into play (his attack bonus vs your AC). Otherwise, if you aren't leaving yourself open, then why are your enemies even part of the equation. They aren't forcing openings against you.

Sure the skill of the attacker is coming into play. Sure they are forcing openings - take some time to watch Kobe Bryant drive to the hoop through traffic. Its his skill to protect the ball vs three others to try to strip it.

Thats how I see someone tumbling through dangerous areas where there are enemies constantly looking for an opening to strike.

Robert

Sovereign Court

I vote to keep it at is, but I really hope that Alpha 3 includes the half movement rate. Being able to slip into a sneak attack position in half the time of 3.5 is a bizarre thought: not to mention that a mid-level rogue could be assumed to always be tumbling unless stated otherwise.


Robert Brambley wrote:

Sure the skill of the attacker is coming into play. Sure they are forcing openings - take some time to watch Kobe Bryant drive to the hoop through traffic. Its his skill to protect the ball vs three others to try to strip it.

Thats how I see someone tumbling through dangerous areas where there are enemies constantly looking for an opening to strike.

Robert

But you aren't protecting a ball from attackers specifically attacking you ONLY. That's not a good analogy.

You are simply moving in a way that doesn't leave your flank open to someone who was focusing on other targets, getting a backhand attack against you for free.

It's more like running with pants that are falling down. They slow you down, and you need to pay attention to them otherwise they'll fall and everyone can see your junk. If you aren't good, someone can take a snapshot of your privates.
But if you are good at keeping them up (or wear a belt), you are fine.

And yeah, I'm for slowing down the movement too.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Zurai wrote:


And it's impossible for the enemy to train to exploit the weaknesses in that approach? There's no such thing as a perfect defense.
Notice the part where I suggest a feat that negates the tumbling immunity rather like the mage-killer type one that prevents casting on the defensive?

There is already a feat that negates preventive attacks of oppurtunity feats. Combat quarters defense from dragons 309.

Scarab Sages

Shane Leahy wrote:

I prefer the Acrobatics check sets the Reflex save for those that threaten the area. This means there is one DC, set by the acrobat for everyone trying to attempt to react to his movement to take an attack of opporturity.

One reason I prefer the saving throw is that there is always a chance (roll a natural 20) that the attack could be bad. It is never a given.

I like this.

I used opposed tumble checks in my campaign, and since most monsters don't have tumble, it works fine.

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / Skills & Feats / Acrobats to move through threatened squares needs to be an opposed check All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills & Feats