|
I did a quick read through looking for changes in the skills section. I found two (please add more if you find them):
1) Acrobatics - the DC for moving through a threatened space and an enemy's space is now based on the opponents BAB, 15 + BAB and 20 + BAB. It used to be a flat 15 and 25.
2) Linguistics - way at the end it says you can attempt to archaic forms of your own language untrained. In Alpha 2 it said this use counted as a cross-class skill (probably a mistake anyway since cross-class skills were gone by Alpha 2), but now that line is completely gone.
I did a quick read through looking for changes in the skills section. I found two (please add more if you find them):
1) Acrobatics - the DC for moving through a threatened space and an enemy's space is now based on the opponents BAB, 15 + BAB and 20 + BAB. It used to be a flat 15 and 25.
Wow, changing it from a flat 15 to 15+ BAB seems drastic. Something like 10+BAB seems much more reasonable.
Director of Game Design
|
Wow, changing it from a flat 15 to 15+ BAB seems drastic. Something like 10+BAB seems much more reasonable.I did a quick read through looking for changes in the skills section. I found two (please add more if you find them):
1) Acrobatics - the DC for moving through a threatened space and an enemy's space is now based on the opponents BAB, 15 + BAB and 20 + BAB. It used to be a flat 15 and 25.
Its not nearly as bad as you think is you work into the equation that a character that wants to use this skill will probably max ranks, get the +3 class skill bonus, and have a reasonable Dex.
10 might work too, but I found in my calculations that it meant that a high level rogue could basically auto make these checks quite frequently.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
With the monk being behind the fighter (and outsiders, monstrous humanoids, magical beasts) in BAB, it means that the monk is worse at preventing an opponent from tumbling around him despite having acrobatics as a class skill himself and his training as a particularly mobile and flexible warrior.
I'm pretty skeptical that the BAB is the right mechanic to use.
...all im saying is that i would like to have a chance at hitting those buggers, my fighter types are supposed to be deadly up close (I will trade your ability for jumping around me like a retard so that you can do acrobatics to dodge missile fire. seriously, how many times are you going to "barrel roll" around me before i figure it out?)
|
|
Maybe a base DC + the higher of (the opponent's BAB or ranks in Acrobatics)?
That's probably a basic DC structure that can be applied to a lot of different skills and their uses.
I agree. This currently exists elsewhere in the rules (I just can't remember where right now...). I will look for examples later.
...all im saying is that i would like to have a chance at hitting those buggers, my fighter types are supposed to be deadly up close (I will trade your ability for jumping around me like a retard so that you can do acrobatics to dodge missile fire. seriously, how many times are you going to "barrel roll" around me before i figure it out?)
For that matter, when are you going to figure out that spellcasting defensively thing too? The issue isn't with the character being tumbled around. It's with the rogue being good enough not to drop his guard just for moving.
I'd much rather see a fighter neutralize the tumble maneuver with a held action or by a power given by a feat, just like the way casting defensively is neutralized.
Its not nearly as bad as you think is you work into the equation that a character that wants to use this skill will probably max ranks, get the +3 class skill bonus, and have a reasonable Dex.10 might work too, but I found in my calculations that it meant that a high level rogue could basically auto make these checks quite frequently.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ok, I checked some typical monsters against likely rogue tumble bonuses and you're right - in many cases the check is fairly easy. I would still prefer 10+BAB because I believe the intent of tumbling was that rogues WOULD auto succeed on this check at higher levels. Any monster with HD = BAB makes the checks much tougher for the rogue and those are the monsters I'm concerned with.
Yes it is a good idea to add BaB into the mix but 10 seems more liking to me. A high level rogue should have a very good chance of making that check, but maybe there should be a feat to increase that difficulty.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I figure a person with good Dex and max tumble probably should be close to an auto. Right now, assuming comparable Str and Dex (and really, fighter-types usually have a better Str than rogues and monks do Dex), the rogue gets only a 3-shift on the fighter, or less than a 50% of tumbling (12+ on 1d20. A person dabbling in acrobatics has next to no change.
I'd like to see it go to 10+, given the rogue a good chance and the dabbler a small chance against 3/4 BAB classes and critters.
I don't understand why people are against having people invested in Tumble automatically remove prevoking Attacks of Opportunity for moving through space.
Would you create rules for reintroducing Attacks of Opportunity against people with the Improved CMB feats? Unarmed Strikes?
Why is it okay to buy a single feat and no longer provoke an attack of opportunity, but have to burn 20+ skillpoints (a heavy investment) to be able to tumble across a battlefield without provoking?
.
The skill was clearly designed as a "you change how you act" not a "you change how a person acts towards you" thing. You no longer provoke the attacks of opportunity. It doesn't matter what your opponent's skill at combat is, you are simply not giving the openings anymore.
Would there be a problem over all this if there was a non-Combat Maneuver feat that simply did this? Then why does heavy investment in skills not count for the same? You are devoting one entire skillpoint per level towards this. That is usually at least 10% of a Rogue's skillpoint investment (even assuming he has a decent Int score too), higher for anyone else. Sure a Rogue can take Skill Mastery and burn an additional Talent to cut down on his skill point requirement, but then that's still a character cost in a different form.
Burning a feat (mobility) would be 10% of most character's resources as well now in pathfinder (with more feats per level). So does this really need to be treated so differently?
.
The "I wanna hit the guy moving around me" doesn't really cut it, and, I don't mean to offend anyone, but to me it sounds like whining. I'd like to be able to hit the guy trying to trip me, or cast spells near me, etc... but they've got Improved Trip or are casting defensively, so I can't.
If you have to deal with readied actions for these kinds of situations, then I can't see why it would be inconceivable to have to do so with tumbling about.
.
If this is the way things are going, my suggestion is to make Mobility back into a regular feat instead of a Combat Maneuver feat. Reasoning:
All the other "removes AoO" feats are not combat feats. You don't have to decide if you can get your Dodge bonus, or not provoke AoO on Tripping, so why does that have to apply when moving? Both are modifying how you do something, not adding a bonus to something or adding new attacks, and really should function even when doing combat related things.
Do this, and the person can just grab the Mobility feat and be done with it. No more checks.
A rogue that's going to heavily invest in Acrobatics anyways saves himself a feat. Otherwise grab the feat, burn the 10% of your feat resource on this one thing, and move on.
The problem here is that this is changing the thinking of Attacks of Opportunity from one concept (you provoke AoOs) to another (you are entitled to AoOs against people).
See, these feats and the skills that remove the AoO... they aren't "preventing" your attacker from making attacks of opportunity. The only thing I can think of that does this is stunning or nausea or stuff like that.
What these feats and skills are doing is making it so you no longer provoke Attacks of Opportunity. Provoke... as in, put yourself into harms way because you aren't skilled enough to do what you want to do without doing so.
You are GIVING the opponent the chance to hit you. So prevent that doesn't mean you take anything away from the opponent, rather you are just stopping yourself from giving them something for free.
If you change the way Attacks of Opportunity are meant to be played, in that, your opponents are now entitled to attacking you extra times per round, but you "prevent" them from making the attacks, then you open a can of worms.
Why wouldn't a person who is paralyzed then not provoke an attack of opportunity against his enemies around him? He's doing nothing to prevent them...
This is the kind of thinking that does on when you say that the Fighter should be entitled to "defend" against the person tumbling past. Or that the Fighter somehow makes it harder for the person to not provoke the attack of opportunity.
.
There are mechanics out there for the kind of thinking you want, where the fighter makes things harder to do around him. It's unfortunately in 4e, but making your threatened space "rough terrain" for purposes of movement does exactly what you want, without messing with Attacks of Opportunity.
In fact, this can alter the skill check involved (depending on the wording of the skill check) or at least the amount of movement capable, but without changing how we treat Attacks of Opportunity, and without making every single creature out there harder when really it's just the Front Liner tanks that should be causing this.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Why wouldn't a person who is paralyzed then not provoke an attack of opportunity against his enemies around him? He's doing nothing to prevent them...
Bad example. A paralyzed person probably should provoke each round from anyone near them. After all, if they use a spell-like ability while paralyzed (which you can do), they provoke - even though they didn't move at all. The only reason I can think of why helpless people don't provoke is that it's just too cruel :)
Provoke once? They are doing the same thing all round... would they then provoke all AoOs possible from every person? (Combat Reflexes)
It's... bad thought process.
.
And the spellcasting during paralyzation.. or a silent/stilled spell in general, is a known "proud nail" of the system. :)
Jason: what do you think about Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might opposed tumble rule?
Basically the opponent who could make an AoO against the tumbler makes an attack roll, and that attack role sets the DC for the Tumble check.
10 might work too, but I found in my calculations that it meant that a high level rogue could basically auto make these checks quite frequently.
Yeah, in our current Runelords AP game, pretty much all the characters (even the cleric) have Tumble and are routinely making the checks to move around in combat - it's a cheap and powerful ability that's hard to resist. Making it harder is good.
I haven't seen it anywhere, and this may be the wrong place, and if it's completely stupid then that's fine, too...
But, if the major argument is that the fighter should be able to smack that tumbler because he's so awesome at fighting, or something like that, why not give the fighter a class feature that increases the DC of someone tumbling around him?
Something like:
cool name here (Ex): At 4th level a fighter is skilled at defending the area around him that he threatens. Tumble checks made to move through his threat range are made at a -2 penalty. At 8th level this increases to a -4 penalty, at 12th level a -6 penalty, at 16th level a -8 penalty, and finally a -10 penalty at 20th level.
I really don't know...just brainstorming. I have no idea about the numbers, or if it should scale differently...or if it should scale at all.
That also might put something back into the fighter since it seems so many people think that class needs something extra.
Or maybe this is a feat...I don't know...
Instead, I would prefer seeing something like the Fighter spending a full round action to make movement through his threatened space considered "difficult terrain". Or possibly when doing a Full Defense action.
I'd even consider allowing a higher level version that allowed this when doing a full attack action.
Here's the appropriate rules on Difficult Terrain and how it would apply:
Difficult Terrain: Difficult terrain hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. (Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares.) You can’t run or charge across difficult terrain.
If you occupy squares with different kinds of terrain, you can move only as fast as the most difficult terrain you occupy will allow.
Flying and incorporeal creatures are not hampered by difficult terrain.
Surface Is . . . DC Modifier
Lightly obstructed (scree, light rubble, shallow bog1, undergrowth) +2
Severely obstructed (natural cavern floor, dense rubble, dense undergrowth) +5
You could make it so it starts off as "Lightly Obstructed, Difficult Terrain" and thus require 2x movement cost (4x Tumbling unless -10), and then increase Tumble DC by +2. Then make it Severely Obstructed at a +5 to the DC.
Then finally make it so you can do it on a full attack action, instead of just full defense.
Not only would it make Tumbling and movement around the Fighter difficult, it would also prevent charges past or against him (can't charge into terrain that is difficult) unless the thing had greater reach than the Fighter.
This would definitely give a noticeable boost to the Fighter, and quell the "but why can't a Fighter affect the Tumbler" arguments. If the Fighter is making the area around him hard to tumble past, then he should be proactively doing it.
|
Jason: what do you think about Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might opposed tumble rule?
Basically the opponent who could make an AoO against the tumbler makes an attack roll, and that attack role sets the DC for the Tumble check.
We used this as a house rule a while ago. It works very well.
That said, though, I see the problem in a whole new light having read the comments above. I always have thought about it from the defender's (person being tumbled past) point of view, not the tumbler's. The concept of an AoO, as they've pointed out, isn't that the defender creates the opportunity (though there are some feats and class abilities that do just that), but that the tumbler (or non-tumbler as the case may be) is leaving himself open by not paying careful attention to his manoeuvre (which, for a tumble, is moving).
The difference I see, though, is that with the other manoeuvres that draw AoOs (trip, grapple, etc) these are absolutely negated by a successful AoO. Movement is a much more valuable commodity, and even on a failed Tumble check you just take an AoO and continue on your merry way. If you were to fall prone (or, less evilly, just stop movement) in the square where the AoO hit you, then I'd be more willing to see it as equivalent and comparable to the other manoeuvres which draw AoO (without a feat to compensate, that is).
I quite like the 15 + BAB for tumbling past (and it's easier than the opposed attack/Acrobatics)... again, even if you fail the roll you still get to trundle past the defender basically unimpeded other than having to take some damage to get into a greatly superior position (probably being done to flank and get your extra 10d6 of damage 6 times a round... yah, I pity the two-weapon rogues... </sarcasm>)
With the 15+BAB check, I can see rogues picking up Dodge and Mobility and not having to worry about the tumble checks at all. I would rather see a skill check be more valuable than a feat in this situation.
|
The difference I see, though, is that with the other manoeuvres that draw AoOs (trip, grapple, etc) these are absolutely negated by a successful AoO. Movement is a much more valuable commodity, and even on a failed Tumble check you just take an AoO and continue on your merry way. If you were to fall prone (or, less evilly, just stop movement) in the square where the AoO hit you, then I'd be more willing to see it as equivalent and comparable to the other manoeuvres which draw AoO (without a feat to compensate, that is).
In Alpha 3, a successful AoO against a combat maneuver doesn't stop the the maneuver. The damage dealt is added instead to the DC.
|
|
Instead, I would prefer seeing something like the Fighter spending a full round action to make movement through his threatened space considered "difficult terrain". Or possibly when doing a Full Defense action.
What would be the RL equivalent?
Currently, readying a trip or a bull rush would work quite well.
The RL conceptualization of it would be a Fighter that is making thrusts and swipes around himself, not to necessarily damage anyone, but to force people to move around him more cautiously or in indirect paths to not get attacked.
It's the reason I say make it part of a full defense action, or just a full round action. The point is not that you are damaging anyone, but forcing people away from your attacks and making it harder to move around you.
A higher level Fighter Only ability would be to do this even when attacking (just, swinging all over the place, and landing a couple legitimate hits in the process).
It's not about making a single ready action to do something against any one person, rather it's about making any and all movement around them harder to do in general.
I am going to vehemently object to making Tumble based on BAB. It makes tumbling around certain creatures (like dragons) nearly impossible. A rogue needs to be able to tumble consistently at high level. He doesn't have the hp or the AC to take hits like the fighters and paladins. Getting hit at high level causes a lot of damage, the kind of damage a rogue can't afford to take. He needs to be able to get in quick and deal damager before his opponent is able to react. If his opponent is still standing, then he miscalculated and then it's his problem. But it shouldn't be his problem before.
There are already a couple of ways in which tumble is limited. First, there is the +2 for each additional opponent. That comes into play a lot. Second, tumbling through an opponent (DC 25) is much more difficult than tumbling around (DC 15) and at high level tumbling through opponents who are frequently huge or larger is the only way to get to a flanking position and still get an attack.
Anyway, I've said my piece. I hope playtesting bears out the rogue's mortality in these cases. But I feel sorry for the rogues in the meantime.
I have to admit, I like the new rule. In general, I dislike flat DCs, because after a while, the DC doesn't matter. My 6th level Battledancer has a +14 to her tumble checks. If I want to tumble past a single opponent, I don't have to roll. Ever. Because, since a nat 1 doesn't fail automatically on a skill check, I can just go. I only have to roll a 3 to tumble past 2 opponents. In two more levels, that'll be an autosuccess as well.
Now granted, this is under 3.5 rules with a synergy bonus from her 5 ranks in Jump, but she also doesn't have skill focus. Our party rogue, who has a dex four points higher than my battledancer, already autosucceeds past 2 opponents--again, without skill focus. The most common use of the skill doesn't matter...and we're only 6th level.
From the flipside, using BAB does make sense to me. Fighting a full BAB character of comparable level means I'd have to hit a DC 7 or better--or a 21. And, honestly, it makes sense from the fighter type's perspective as well. "I've spent six levels watching people tumble past me. I used to be able to hit them occasionally, but now I never can, and, further, I can't even improve to the point where I can." I mean, I guess I can sort of understand why people make the argument that maybe the fighter should have a feat or special ability, but what about rangers or paladins? And, further, isn't fighting ability supposed to be what BAB represents? Why do only people who invest in a feat learn to defend against something that happens to them all the time? (Because, let's face it, every rogue and monk worth his salt is going to have max ranks in acrobatics. Even dex based fighter-types of other classes can invest in it in PRPG and then take skill focus to make their modifier comparable.)
In summary: I like that the DC is no longer flat, and don't have a problem with the 15+. I also have yet to playtest anything, but we have a rogue and a ranger in our group who both have ranks in Acrobatics, so we'll get to see with and without class skill bonus. Should be fun. :)
