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


Skills & Feats

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Could you please make the Acrobatics skill an opposed check for a person trying to move through threatened squares and through an enemy's space? A fixed DC is really not all that great.

The reason:

With a fixed DC, a person can use acrobatics to avoid the attack of opportunity from a 20th level fighter exactly the same as a 1st level wizard (or from a dragon just as easily as a simple goblin). Sure, the consequences of failure may be different, but a simple goblin should be easier to tumble past than a dragon.

By having a fixed DC, people get to the point of auto-success regardless of the creature he/she is trying to tumble past.

The solution:

A solution that a DM of mine uses (and I now use) is to make the acrobatics check an opposed roll versus the creature's base attack bonus. This makes the dragon tougher than the simple goblin. If you have a better solution, by all means, but the check should be opposed in some way rather than a fixed DC.

Thank you.


I agree... This is certainly one of the areas where static skill DC's tend to fail, IMHO.

Another option I have seen is to base the DC off the BAB of your opponent. Such as DC 10 (or 15) + BAB of the creature you are trying to tumble past.


sciencephile wrote:
A solution that a DM of mine uses (and I now use) is to make the acrobatics check an opposed roll versus the creature's base attack bonus. This makes the dragon tougher than the simple goblin. If you have a better solution, by all means, but the check should be opposed in some way rather than a fixed DC.

Someone else suggested a check against the blocker's CMB, which would work just as well, to my mind. Either one is a vast improvement over the static DC (a static DC makes the Mobility feat kind of pointless except as a prereq for Spring Attack).

Scarab Sages

Add me to the list of people who wants to see this as an opposed check.

We fiddled with a house rule where the attacker basically got an AoO against you no matter what (unless he was out of AoOs), but your "AC" was your Tumble check. I think it worked pretty well.


Pathos wrote:


Another option I have seen is to base the DC off the BAB of your opponent. Such as DC 10 (or 15) + BAB of the creature you are trying to tumble past.

Sorry for the confusion. When I mean opposed roll based on BAB, I meant this to mean acrobats vs. BAB with exactly how you stated it above (vs. a DC 10 (or other reasonable number) + BAB). It would have been technically correct if I had left the word "roll" from my sentence.


Yeah, this makes sense, actually. It is a bit too easy to dance through threatened squares. However, you do lose half your movement when you do it, so it's not like it's a totally free manoeuvre.


PHB2 knights have an ability that does exactly this sort of thing. However, it raises it by a fixed amount (fixed in that it won't change round-to-round, but it will vary from knight to knight). That's a Good Thing, though, because opposed checks always, always, always take longer than flat-DC checks.


sciencephile wrote:
Could you please make the Acrobatics skill an opposed check...

Yes, please. Me want too...

We do this for about a year, using a Tumble vs. REF-save (+10 if moving through occupied square) because the rules as they are do not take into account the opponent's reaction/expereince/combat training, etc. and at high levels (i.e. high tumble skill) the tumbler never provokes AOO.

BAB or CMB could also work.

On the same issue, Concentration has the same problems but will open a new thread for this...


This is a dark dark road you are discussing and I have yet to see the compromise that seems like a fair balance to me. As a frequent tumble user I will admit that the static DC becomes ridiculous at high levels. However, as skills only scale 3 points faster than BAB and the BAB of a lot of what you face through your career can readily match your tumble rolls this kind of opposed check can completely devalue the skill. Should I be able to automatically succeed at tumbling through a colossal red dragons space(s) at 13th level? No. Should I have a serious advantage for the effort given a colossal's relative dexterity versus the skillful mobility of my much smaller character? Absolutely. While a character who trains heavily in tumbling shouldn't be able to readily auto-succeed on all of their checks by the higher mid levels they should clearly have the advantage to their attempt in most situations. After all, most of the characters who actually maximize their training with acrobatics(tumbling) are likely to be at a severe disadvantage to the foes they actually have to use the skill against if they don't have a better than average chance of success.


What ever the DC maybe, it SHOULD AND MUST only be one roll compared to each opponents DC independently!


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 think the best way is going for BAB as base modifier for the Acrobatics DC.
The less you have to roll the better.

HEY! Let's just use the CMB for that! Bigger creatures have more reach and this should be taken into account too!

Make one acrobatics check. Combare it to ??+CMB for each opponent step by step individually. If you can't beat one opponents DC you provoke an AoO.
If you take damage, make another Acrobatics check (15+damage) or fall prone and loose the rest of your actions.

Sovereign Court

DracoDruid wrote:

I think the best way is going for BAB as base modifier for the Acrobatics DC.

The less you have to roll the better.

HEY! Let's just use the CMB for that! Bigger creatures have more reach and this should be taken into account too!

Make one acrobatics check. Combare it to ??+CMB for each opponent step by step individually. If you can't beat one opponents DC you provoke an AoO.
If you take damage, make another Acrobatics check (15+damage) or fall prone and loose the rest of your actions.

If you use CMB it is high enough that you don't need to add it to anything, otherwise no one will ever get it to work without synergies and both tumbling feats. I can see making it opposed by CMB alone, but I also like the idea of it being opposed by a ref save too.


Why? CMB = ST + BAB + size. This is not that high right? Whether you tumble around or through an opponent it should be 10+CMB or 15/20+CMB.
But than, why not just 15+CMB for everything (like it's used for combat maneuvers too).

As to REF-saves: This just results in too much rolling. PF is trying to cut those down where there are unnecessary, so no real sense to use this here.


CMB + Size + 10

I dont like that personally.

You run into situations where smaller creatures find ti harder to get by larger creatures, which is sort of against the stereotype.

The Exchange

It may be worth mentioning that the Acrobatics skill comes with some heavy modifiers depending on terrain, which otherwise impact on the skill. The problem with these is that I (as a DM) generally forget to apply them. But that is more my problem as a DM/player than a problem with the Acrobatics/Tumble skill. Also, the restriction of movement to half while tumbling has an impact unless you are moving more than a few squares.

But I agree that some sort of resistance mechanism might be good, provided it isn't too cumbersome.

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
DracoDruid wrote:
But than, why not just 15+CMB for everything (like it's used for combat maneuvers too).

There's a certain appeal to this, a single unified system, but I don't know how this changes the probability of success.


I disagree with this, since there's now a Feat that lets you utterly ignore all attacks of opportunity for moving through threatened squares. If you make it a scaling difficulty, nobody will take Acrobatics (they'll just take the Feat and spend the skill points elsewhere).


Pneumonica wrote:
I disagree with this, since there's now a Feat that lets you utterly ignore all attacks of opportunity for moving through threatened squares. If you make it a scaling difficulty, nobody will take Acrobatics (they'll just take the Feat and spend the skill points elsewhere).

Mobility is now a combat maneuver feat (1/round usage) and also has Dodge as a prereq. Most rogues won't spend 2 feats to get the same benefit as a skill.


Pneumonica wrote:
I disagree with this, since there's now a Feat that lets you utterly ignore all attacks of opportunity for moving through threatened squares. If you make it a scaling difficulty, nobody will take Acrobatics (they'll just take the Feat and spend the skill points elsewhere).

Which is one thing I disagree about the new Mobility feat. But then, that is for another discussion I'm guessing.


OutlawJT wrote:
Should I be able to automatically succeed at tumbling through a colossal red dragons space(s) at 13th level? No. Should I have a serious advantage for the effort given a colossal's relative dexterity versus the skillful mobility of my much smaller character? Absolutely. While a character who trains heavily in tumbling shouldn't be able to readily auto-succeed on all of their checks by the higher mid levels they should clearly have the advantage to their attempt in most situations.

I'd have to totally agree with this. I actually like the way the rule is written currently, but then our group tends to go a bit towards "cinematic flair". It's just more "heroic" to tumble through the group of baddies and pop up behind someone to get your sneak attack damage in by flanking. Using the rule as is cuts down some of the overhead and lets the combat continue smoothly.

I'm not for "dumbing down" anything, but less checks in combat for this that or the other thing are better in my opinion. Besides, as has been pointed out, there are a number of feats that allow for avoiding attacks of opportunity. This really seems no different to me.


sciencephile wrote:

Could you please make the Acrobatics skill an opposed check for a person trying to move through threatened squares and through an enemy's space? A fixed DC is really not all that great.

Thank you.

Actually the PFRPG is trying to do away with most or all opposed checks as they are often mechanics heavy, & slow down combat. Especially when several modifiers often have to be recalculated for the combatants due to spells and whatnot.

I think the static DC from the book is way off however.

the DC should take into a should work similar to this:

DC is set at 10 + BAB of the creature you are tumbling through(or the area they threaten) If two creatures threaten the same square use the higher of the two.

This means the DC for tumbling under the new rule takes into account the CMB of the creature. Since CMB involves BAB and ability bonuses the Creatures abilities are represented just as well as they would be in an opposed roll.

So it accomplishes the same thing with less muss and fuss.


Oh, and the +2 cumulative penalty should still apply.


Pathos wrote:
Pneumonica wrote:
I disagree with this, since there's now a Feat that lets you utterly ignore all attacks of opportunity for moving through threatened squares. If you make it a scaling difficulty, nobody will take Acrobatics (they'll just take the Feat and spend the skill points elsewhere).
Which is one thing I disagree about the new Mobility feat. But then, that is for another discussion I'm guessing.

And I agree with you 100% on that point. However, if one stays, so does the other, otherwise the system is imbalanced.


I currently use this method: Tumble check vs. Opponent's BAB + Strength (or Dexterity for Weapon Finesse combatants). If the opponent wins, they can then make an attack of opportunity. Tumbling through the opponent's space gives them a +10 bonus.


ok so I totally mistyped in my earlier post.

DC for Tumbling should be:
10 + CMB of opponent.


I personally go with 10 + BAB as the basic DC for tumble. Then you add modifiers like +10 for full speed, or +10 for moving through.

CMB doesn't sit well with me, because then a big creature would have an easier time preventing a smaller from entering its space. Try preventing a fly flying through your legs or an inch past you. Now try the same with your little brother. Take the result of of this test into consideration for all further deliberations.


Teach wrote:

I personally go with 10 + BAB as the basic DC for tumble. Then you add modifiers like +10 for full speed, or +10 for moving through.

CMB doesn't sit well with me, because then a big creature would have an easier time preventing a smaller from entering its space. Try preventing a fly flying through your legs or an inch past you. Now try the same with your little brother. Take the result of of this test into consideration for all further deliberations.

Well there is a difference in your example because one can fly the other can't. But I understand your point. I actually forgot Size mod is added into CMB.

So instead try CMB - Size mod or just BAB + Str or Dex(depending on the creature)

Either way the opponents abilities are taken into consideration as opposed to the static 15 DC, and that is the important thing.

Shadow Lodge

-Anvil- wrote:

Well there is a difference in your example because one can fly the other can't. But I understand your point. I actually forgot Size mod is added into CMB.

So instead try CMB - Size mod or just BAB + Str or Dex(depending on the creature)

Either way the opponents abilities are taken into consideration as opposed to the static 15 DC, and that is the important thing.

Absolutely, this just makes too much sense for me. Anything that makes it way harder to somersault past an ancient red dragon than a commoner goblin I am totally down with.

I just dont like it that after level 7 or 8 a rogue doesnt need to roll anymore, since 1s arent auto failures (that hasnt changed, right?)


Thraxus wrote:
I currently use this method: Tumble check vs. Opponent's BAB + Strength (or Dexterity for Weapon Finesse combatants). If the opponent wins, they can then make an attack of opportunity. Tumbling through the opponent's space gives them a +10 bonus.

I don't see how Strength applies. If anything, it's a speed issue, so Dex makes more sense to me. If you actually do provoke an AoO, then Strength comes into play (unless it's a Finesse fighter, of course).

Liberty's Edge

sciencephile wrote:

Could you please make the Acrobatics skill an opposed check for a person trying to move through threatened squares and through an enemy's space? A fixed DC is really not all that great.

The reason:

With a fixed DC, a person can use acrobatics to avoid the attack of opportunity from a 20th level fighter exactly the same as a 1st level wizard (or from a dragon just as easily as a simple goblin). Sure, the consequences of failure may be different, but a simple goblin should be easier to tumble past than a dragon.

By having a fixed DC, people get to the point of auto-success regardless of the creature he/she is trying to tumble past.

The solution:

A solution that a DM of mine uses (and I now use) is to make the acrobatics check an opposed roll versus the creature's base attack bonus. This makes the dragon tougher than the simple goblin. If you have a better solution, by all means, but the check should be opposed in some way rather than a fixed DC.

Thank you.

I have been doing this for years in my games. I designed this rule that I use:

Tumble: I always felt that tumble should be an opposed check of some sort: in other words, some people should be harder to tumble past than others. The DC to tumble past another is 10 + BAB of the person you’re tumbling past. Raise the DC by 2 for each additional threatened squares you’re tumbling past. In other words if you have to avoid attacks of opportunities of three guards, the DC would increase by 4. (+2 for each additional threatened square). If you are tumbling away from a giant with 15’ reach, there are essentially 3 threatened squares, so the DC is similarly increased by 4. If the three guards in the first example were all giants with 15 reach, that would be 9 threatened squares. DC would increase by 16!!! (DC +2 increase for each threatened square over 1).

To tumble through a square occupied by another, the DC is 20 + BAB of person you are tumbling past. Use the above rules for increases to DC when there are multiple threatened squares. For the purpose of tumbling through an occupied square, the adjacent squares (5’ radius around the target) are not considered threatened. If that target has a 10’ reach however, the DC is increased by +2, 15ft reach increase to +4, etc.

Furthermore, difficult terrain, debris, obstacles, etc can apply a +1 to +4 increase in the DC at DMs discretion. Terrain that reduces movement always increases the DC by +4 (such as snow, deep mud, etc.)

Concentration: when casting defensively, this also should be an opposed check – the more skillful an adversary you are against, the harder it should be to be able to cast defensively.

The DC is 10 + BAB of opponent. Raise the DC by 2 for each additional target that threatens you. Roll once, and use the highest DC that any one of the opponents would have.

For instance, you are surrounded by two 5th level fighters (BAB +5) and one 10th level fighter (BAB +10). The DC is increased by +4 for all three since there are two additional opponents. The DC would 22 for the 10th level fighter. If you rolled a total less than 22 your spell fails.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

I actually prefer the tumble rules as written. I don't think avoiding an AoO is a huge deal and it's fine with me if it's pretty much an auto success at higher levels.

Kinda sucks to have a flashy acrobatic rogue who get smacked around trying to tumble every time you fight a BBEG.

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

An opposed check - one die roll vs. another - is out; too much rolling. But a the players tumble roll against a DC that increase, yes.

Most folks seem to agree: DC = 10 or maybe 15 + BAB or maybe CMB. Let me try to figure out which one works best...

First, let's figure out how good folks are at tumbling.
* Rogue 1: Acrobatics = ability mod + ranks + 3, max ranks=1, Str 12, Dex 18, so 4+1+3 = +8
* Fighter 1: Acrobatics = ability mod + ranks, max ranks=1, Str 18, Dex 12, so 1+1 = +2 - armor check penalties
* Rogue 16: max rank=16, Str 14, Dex 22, 16+6+3 = +25
* Fighter 16: max ranks=16, Str 22, Dex 14, 16+2 = +18 - armor check penalties

Option 1: DC = 10 + BAB + Dex modifier
Looking at feint for inspiration:
"To feint, make a Deception skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s base attack bonus + your opponent’s Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Deception, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s Deception bonus, if higher."

This would make it 10 + BAB + Dex mod? I can't think of a skill to oppose Acrobatics, unless it was more Acrobatics. That would be DC = 10 + Ac ranks + Dex mod (+ 3?). So, basically, BAB or Acro ranks+bonus, whichever is higher. Not bad. This does not take into account size. That may or may not be okay.

Looking at our friends above, the DCs to tumble past them would be:
* Rogue 1: 10+0+4 = 14 or 10+1+4+3 = 18
* Fighter 1: 10+1+1 = 12 or 10+1+1 = 12
* Rogue 16: 10+12+6 = 28 or 10+16+6+3 = 35
* Fighter 16: 10+16+2 = 28 or 10+16+2 = 28 - note that for a Fighter with max'ed rank in Acrobatics, the two formulas result in the same numbers. Most Fighters won't max out Acrobatics though, so the BAB formula is better for them.

Now comparing them:
* Rogue 1 vs, Rogue 1: DC 18, Acro skill check = d20 +8; 50% success.
* Rogue 1 vs Fighter 1: DC 12, Acro skill check = d20 +8; 80% success.
* Rogue 16 vs, Rogue 16: DC 35, Acro skill check = d20 +25; 50% success.
* Rogue 16 vs Fighter 16: DC 28, Acro skill check = d20 +25; 85% success.
* Rogue 1 vs Fighter 16: DC 28, Acro skill check = d20 +8; 0% success.

That seems pretty good.

Option 2: DC = 15 + CMB
This time let's do DC = 15 + CMB, which would basically make tumble though an occupied square another combat maneuver.

Using the same folks, the DCs to tumble past them would now be:
* Rogue 1: 15+(0+1) = 16
* Fighter 1: 15+(1+4) = 20
* Rogue 16: 15+(12+2) = 29
* Fighter 16: 15+(16+6) = 37

Wow. DCs are all higher and now favor Str much more than Dex. That doesn't seem quite right to me. If opponents were Large or bigger it would get even harder to move through threatened squares.

Comparing them:
* Rogue 1 vs, Rogue 1: DC 16, Acro skill check = d20 +8; 60% success.
* Rogue 1 vs Fighter 1: DC 20, Acro skill check = d20 +8; 40% success.
* Rogue 16 vs, Rogue 16: DC 29, Acro skill check = d20 +25; 80% success.
* Rogue 16 vs Fighter 16: DC 37, Acro skill check = d20 +25; 40% success.
* Rogue 1 vs Fighter 16: DC 37, Acro skill check = d20 +8; -95% success.

Yuck.

Now, you could lower the DCs by making it 10 + CMB, but the strength advantage would remain. Plus, I favor using an existing formula so tinkering with the combat maneuvers formula doesn't appeal to me.

Conclusions
In theory I liked the idea of using the same formula as combat maneuvers, but the combination of the 15 base and the Str bias result in success rates I don't like. After looking at the numbers, I would recommend going with something that parallels the way feint works. It mimics an existing formula and the results are closer to what I think we are looking for.

To [tumble through a threatened square], make a[n Acrobatics] skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s base attack bonus + your opponent’s [Dexterity] modifier. If your opponent is trained in [Acrobatics], the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s [Acrobatics] bonus, if higher.


-Anvil- wrote:


Well there is a difference in your example because one can fly the other can't. But I understand your point. I actually forgot Size mod is added into CMB.

And it's the mod that gets better if you get bigger.

By the way, you're wrong: The little brother can fly if you get a friend to toss him!

Dark Archive

I'm using 10 + CMB in my game for tumbling past, 20 + CMB for tumbling through. It works great! I used to use 10 + Reflex Save modifier, but with Alpha 1, I switched immediately to CMB.

Your logic is making a blanket assumption, I feel. Any creature can take the feat that lets them use their Dex modifier for CMB instead, so nimble creatures can still be harder to tumble by, if they choose to take that feat. I do think the size modifier to CMB works well too.

The downside would be tumbling past a hill giant. Not very fast, but still hard to tumble by. Maybe we could say it's because they leave a very big footprint when they stomp on you?

While 10 + CMB + Dex modifier + Size modifier is certainly possible, I think it's overly complicated for what needs to be accomplished. I certainly don't think an opposed roll is necessary, with the CMB mechanic Jason has come up with.


Teach wrote:


And it's the mod that gets better if you get bigger.

By the way, you're wrong: The little brother can fly if you get a friend to toss him!

Y'know I almost mentioned that in my reply too! lol


Eric Tillemans wrote:

I actually prefer the tumble rules as written. I don't think avoiding an AoO is a huge deal and it's fine with me if it's pretty much an auto success at higher levels.

I can't imagine ever wanting or being ok with DC's that are automatic successes. (Other than things that should be because they are everyday things everyone can do)

That completely removes any sense of suspense, struggle and excitement. There should always be a chance of failure or the characters are just going through the motions. At that point it just becomes "Hey look at the neat stuff my character can do! I'm cool!"


-Anvil- wrote:
Eric Tillemans wrote:

I actually prefer the tumble rules as written. I don't think avoiding an AoO is a huge deal and it's fine with me if it's pretty much an auto success at higher levels.

I can't imagine ever wanting or being ok with DC's that are automatic successes. (Other than things that should be because they are everyday things everyone can do)

That completely removes any sense of suspense, struggle and excitement. There should always be a chance of failure or the characters are just going through the motions. At that point it just becomes "Hey look at the neat stuff my character can do! I'm cool!"

Yeah, but the system's centered around it. As you gain higher ranks in a skill, some tasks become automatic that were once challenging. I put these characteristics of Tumble into that category - duck-and-weave is trivially easy for somebody who has 23 ranks of the Tumble skill.

Liberty's Edge

Pneumonica wrote:


Yeah, but the system's centered around it. As you gain higher ranks in a skill, some tasks become automatic that were once challenging. I put these characteristics of Tumble into that category - duck-and-weave is trivially easy for somebody who has 23 ranks of the Tumble skill.

But not as trivial if you're tumbling around a Half-Dragon Storm-Giant Barbarian who wants to clobber you!

Robert


I agree with making the Acrobatics no-AOO test a variable DC, but I disagree with basing it off CMB. CMB is heavily influenced by size, and large creatures already get benefits with respect to annoying tumblers - larger reach, more likely to threaten with another creature to raise the DC, more likely to have to tumble through them to raise the DC, etc.

Liberty's Edge

Zurai wrote:
I agree with making the Acrobatics no-AOO test a variable DC, but I disagree with basing it off CMB. CMB is heavily influenced by size, and large creatures already get benefits with respect to annoying tumblers - larger reach, more likely to threaten with another creature to raise the DC, more likely to have to tumble through them to raise the DC, etc.

I agree. As my post above indicates, the system I use is just 10 + BAB (with additional modifiers for multiple targets).

Substituting Acrobatics for BAB for those trained in it seems like a pragmatic extra - but ones maxed out skill is usually far higher than ones BAB. 9th level rogue has +6 BAB and +12 for a maxed out skill (not counting ability modifier) - so thats twice as high.

Robert


I vote against this entire idea it should stay static

It makes sense but i really find it unneeded

Grand Lodge

I too am against CMB. If you have a Tiny creature and a Huge creature, if feel some of th benefits of size would off set.

BAB seems a better fit.


Robert Brambley wrote:


I agree. As my post above indicates, the system I use is just 10 + BAB (with additional modifiers for multiple targets).

THis here alone is all that is really needed IMO. Just a simple "sliding/dynamic" DC scale.

The very same kind of mechanic could also be used for casting defensively also. Perhaps even DC 10 + spell level + BAB. But that's for a different conversation, I'm guessing.


There are several questions arising with these suggestions.

Some posters feel a tumble check to avoid an AoO in a threatened square should be scaled according to the threatening creature.

What about a ranged attack provoking an AoO or casting a spell in a threatened square? Should these also be scaled by the creature making the threat? Spellcasting is already scaled by spell level and avoided with a Concentration/Spellcraft check, which is as easily made failure-proof as a Tumble check. But it isn't scaled by the threatening creature. A ranged attack from a threatened square has no way of avoiding an AoO at all.

What if Rogues had, as a class feature, 5th Level: Avoid AoOs from moving through a threatened square? I wonder if this had been an original design of Rogues, would it be questioned at all? It is, after all, a Rogue nerf being proposed, not a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard nerf.

Would anyone want to increase the Concentration/Spellcraft DC by the BAB of the threatening creature as well as the level of the spell?

What would be the rule for multiple creatures threatening the same square? Or the rule for Tumbling through multiple squares threatened by the same creature? Or a trap that threatens a square?

I believe the rule as written has a static DC because a threatened square is a static thing. The Tumble check is not to avoid the creature, but to avoid an AoO from moving into out of a threatened square. Just as a Concentration check is to cast the spell while in a threatened square, not to dodge the creature. Some may say it is the same thing. If so, why not make it a Dex based skill instead of Con based skill.

All of the suggestions made so far make Tumble less useful against the creatures it is most needed against; creatures with reach, naturally or with weapons, specifically giants, which traditionally have slower reflexes not quicker. So is BAB the logical scaling factor? Or should it be some kind of a Dexterity based factor?

While I'm not actually opposed to a scaling DC for Tumble, I wouldn't want a rule that didn't address all these questions. And not just make things harder for Rogues.

-Jack

Liberty's Edge

Pathos wrote:


The very same kind of mechanic could also be used for casting defensively also. Perhaps even DC 10 + spell level + BAB.

That too was part of my post (above).

In case you dont want to go back and look for it....

Spoiler:
>>Concentration: when casting defensively, this also should be an opposed check – the more skillful an adversary you are against, the harder it should be to be able to cast defensively.

The DC is 10 + BAB of opponent. Raise the DC by 2 for each additional target that threatens you. Roll once, and use the highest DC that any one of the opponents would have.

For instance, you are surrounded by two 5th level fighters (BAB +5) and one 10th level fighter (BAB +10). The DC is increased by +4 for all three since there are two additional opponents. The DC would 22 for the 10th level fighter. If you rolled a total less than 22 your spell fails.<<


Wow. Keep your teeth off my engine! ;-P

Repairman Jack wrote:


What about a ranged attack provoking an AoO or casting a spell in a threatened square? Should these also be scaled by the creature making the threat?

I don't know about ranged attacks. Right now, they're not scaled, they just happen, and there isn't much you can do (except from stepping away, which works unless the guy has enough reach or you can't manoeuvre as you want), but since stepping away isn't that hard, it's okay I think. The difference between ranged attacks, and movement and magic is that you often can't help but stay close to the enemy to cast magic (because you started next to him and your magic requires a touch attack) or your way has to lead through his threatened square.

Repairman Jack wrote:


Spellcasting is already scaled by spell level and avoided with a Concentration/Spellcraft check, which is as easily made failure-proof as a Tumble check.

I think the Concentration/Spellcraft check should be scaled as well.

My houserule sets the DC at 10 + spell level + enemyies' BAB. If you don't succeed at that check, the enemies (for whose BAB you didn't make it) get an AoO against you. I also increase the DC by 2 when you're flanked.

Repairman Jack wrote:


What would be the rule for multiple creatures threatening the same square? Or the rule for Tumbling through multiple squares threatened by the same creature? Or a trap that threatens a square?

Since AoOs are once per occurance, not once per square, the different squares aren't a problem: When you move through an enemy's territory, you provoke one AoO total, not one per square. SO one single tumble/acrobatics check will take care of it all.

As I said above, the DC for tumble (and casting defensively) is tied to BAB, and failure means that the AoOs do happen. You can fail against one and succeed against the other if the DCs are different, but it's all one single roll (say you roll 20 and the DCs against 2 enemies are 18 and 23, the guy with 23 will be able to attack you while the other won't)

Repairman Jack wrote:


I believe the rule as written has a static DC because a threatened square is a static thing. The Tumble check is not to avoid the creature, but to avoid an AoO from moving into out of a threatened square. Just as a Concentration check is to cast the spell while in a threatened square, not to dodge the creature. Some may say it is the same thing. If so, why not make it a Dex based skill instead of Con based skill.

That's semantics. You go through a threatened square, or cast in a threatened square, yes, but the square isn't the threat, the guy with (potentially) the BFW (big frikkin' weapon) is, and the more experienced the guy is with attacking and harrying, the harder it will be to avoid presenting him with an opening he can exploit.

Repairman Jack wrote:


All of the suggestions made so far make Tumble less useful against the creatures it is most needed against; creatures with reach, naturally or with weapons, specifically giants, which traditionally have slower reflexes not quicker. So is BAB the logical scaling factor? Or should it be some kind of a Dexterity based factor?

Actually, the rule doesn't care whether the guy has long reach or not. A weak kobold warrior with a spiked chain will still be easier to avoid than a very strong half-orc monk with bare fists.

I think BAB is a good scaling factor, since it represents combat experience. After all, those giants with their huge BABs are more likely to hit you with their attacks, too. If it were all about reflexes and the like, they should have a hard time hitting you with their slow wits and reflexes (but hit harder).

That sounds like Power Attack to me. Hm... that gives me an idea: the DC could use "effective BAB", meaning that if the guy uses power attack, the DC goes down because he forsook accuracy with sheer brute force.

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
KaeYoss wrote:
That sounds like Power Attack to me. Hm... that gives me an idea: the DC could use "effective BAB", meaning that if the guy uses power attack, the DC goes down because he forsook accuracy with sheer brute force.

What if it were their total attack modifier? That would take into account BAB, weapon specializations, Str bonuses, Siz bonuses, Dex bonuses if they're Finessing, Power Attack, magic weapons, etc. Basically, an Acrobatics check vs. their Attack, which is already listed in their stat block.

Or would that make it way too hard to succeed?


Mosaic wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
That sounds like Power Attack to me. Hm... that gives me an idea: the DC could use "effective BAB", meaning that if the guy uses power attack, the DC goes down because he forsook accuracy with sheer brute force.

What if it were their total attack modifier? That would take into account BAB, weapon specializations, Str bonuses, Siz bonuses, Dex bonuses if they're Finessing, Power Attack, magic weapons, etc. Basically, an Acrobatics check vs. their Attack, which is already listed in their stat block.

Or would that make it way too hard to succeed?

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.

It seems to me that to counter a tumbling creature would require speed, not strength. That said, BAB is a function of size as well as combat experience. Its based on hit dice for monsters, not usually class levels. A kobold with 10 levels of Rogue and a small spiked chain would be easier to tumble past than a stone giant with no levels or weapons. A gelatinous cube(blind and a Dex of 1) would still be +3 to the DC to tumble past.

IMO a better factor than BAB, would be something that covered experience, hit dice, and dexterity (not strength); like base Reflex save or just the Dex modifier. But I'm still not convinced scaling is needed at all.

-Jack

1 to 50 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