Acrobatics (ex-Tumble ) - new AoO definition?


Skills & Feats

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Fischkopp wrote:


A melee fight on the other hand, means action, danger and the possibillity to get hurt.

There's action, danger, and the possibility of getting hurt even with an auto-success on a tumble check to avoid AoO. I've got roguish/swashbuckling types doing it all the time in the games I'm running, and I still smack them around. I just don't get to do it with an AoO as they move around.

One side effect of adding BAB to the acrobatic DC: Less tactical movement is likely to be a result. Is that good for the game?


Bill Dunn wrote:
One side effect of adding BAB to the acrobatic DC: Less tactical movement is likely to be a result. Is that good for the game?

Well, or real tactical movement: go where it makes sense to go and not through the thick of melee when you can avoid it...


The point being the "if you can avoid it" makes this less often. Moving around things is either impossible (tighter fighting quarters), or impossible to do in a timely manner (taking two rounds can mean targets are now in different positions).

This is a reduction in tactical choices. Allowing more reliable Tumbling allows more options for movement.

You can argue this is good or bad, but it's definitely less options.

Liberty's Edge

SamRoswell wrote:
If the main issue is that people can eventually perform Tumble actions (and Concentration/Spot/Listen/Search/Ride/Swim/Climb/Knowledge/Craft/et c.) without a roll, and others find that fact insulting, would it not be simpler, and more consistent, to (re-)introduce an automatic failure possibility into the skill roll mechanic? Roll a 1 on your skill check, no matter what skill, and you automatically fail.

It's been a house rule of mine as far as I can remember. Even the best of the best are not immune to bad luck.


Kaisoku wrote:

This is a reduction in tactical choices. Allowing more reliable Tumbling allows more options for movement.

You can argue this is good or bad, but it's definitely less options.

As would give everyone free flight. ;P

Ok, I think it's more a matter of style of play than an essential question of game design.
I would like to see this in the rules, as I would like it to be a challenge to tumble around an experienced fighter, as stated before. But, maybe that's just me.
(And if you look at the math of a level 20 fighter (+20 BAB) against a level 20 rogue... that's not very hindering. Even a level 13 rogue could probably tumble without problems around a level 20 Fighter with the right (and level approbiate) gear...)

Edit: hupps, spelling

Liberty's Edge

Fischkopp wrote:
[..]Ok, I think it's more a matter of style of play than an essential question of game design.

I started the thread because I think the inclusion of BAB in the DC changes a core rule and is thus a question of game design.

Fischkopp wrote:
I would like to see this in the rules, as I would like it to be a challenge to tumble around an experienced fighter, as stated before. But, maybe that's just me.

You'll find a suggestion which allows the trained combatant to deal with the issue in the [New feat tree] Combat Reflexes thread. The assumption is that he can react to tumblers and casters because he has specific training, not because he hits hard. The BAB prerequisites are there to reflect the ability to make multiple attacks per round. This lead me to the DEX bonus and how it is used to determine the number of AoO in 3.5. Big thanks to everyone for the inspiration. :-)


Tarlane wrote:


The second part I can see as more of an argument, though I still think BaB is a pretty good baseline for these things. The stone golem may be less speedy then the giant, but he has a higher BaB because he knows how to land blows and find those openings even when he doesn't have as long to do so.

I still strongly lean towards the BaB idea, but if you are thinking that its all based on how nimble the person being tumbled past is, perhaps the idea of something like opposed acrobatics checks(or to save on some extra dice rolling, maybe DC is 10+Acrobatics of the opponent?)

-Tarlane

This was ignored earlier, but I think it's an appropriate and valid suggestion. The difficulty should be higher against more experienced enemies, but BaB doesn't really seem like it represents purely experience. I mean, some of the arguments are "a fighter has seen their fair share of enemies tumble by..."

I think a rogue would see their fair share of enemies tumble by and know what they are about to do. Why? Because they have training watching people do that. So, the answer, opposed Acrobatics checks. Opposed checks are not a novelty, while DC = x + BaB are. Those that are not trained in Acrobatics have essentially the same chance as before: roll + DEX. It also gives a better feel for a monk battle. I mean, what is cooler than two monks moving around each other way faster than 5' every second, taking a pot shot or two at opposed onlookers who can barely tell where either of them are.

While your average hunk of armor fighter can be easily avoided, yet more experienced fighters do have a better chance (thanks to armor training and the lower armor check penalty to acrobatics).

So, the suggestion was ignored before. Can I repose it and get a response -- can we say compromise?

Liberty's Edge

SamRoswell wrote:


What you do at higher levels is tumble past more enemies, tumble through enemies, tumble at full speed, or some combination of the above. With the new rules what you will see is fewer people bothering;

This is simply not true. Sciencephile on here can attest - I have been using the BAB mechanic for both tumble and casting defensive for years now. There is still plenty of tumbling and such being done - and lots of casting defensively.

True there not as much auto-success as there use to be - but its still a sound tactice.

if your choice is to "move away and suffer an attack of opportunity" or "move away as a tumble and possibly suffer an attack of opportunity" the choice is pretty obvious.

For the record DC 15 for casting Defensive is too high. I've played it at both 10 and 15. But since you have add to the level of the spell and add +2 for each additional opponent, 15 + spell level + BAB is too high. Tumbling doesnt have to add the spell level into the equation, so 15 + BAB is comparable.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
... Sciencephile on here can attest - I have been using the BAB mechanic for both tumble and casting defensive for years now. There is still plenty of tumbling and such being done - and lots of casting defensively.

Yeah, that Robert is a jerk about his acrobatics/casting defensively and the BAB. Freakin' good for nothing DM $@#!

Just kidding. Yeah, we still casted spells and tumbled and it worked out pretty well. No complaints here other than the fact that I agree that 15 is too high for casting defensively since it effectively scales because of the increase in spell levels that are used later.

Liberty's Edge

sciencephile wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:
... Sciencephile on here can attest - I have been using the BAB mechanic for both tumble and casting defensive for years now. There is still plenty of tumbling and such being done - and lots of casting defensively.

Yeah, that Robert is a jerk about his acrobatics/casting defensively and the BAB. Freakin' good for nothing DM $@#!

Just kidding. Yeah, we still casted spells and tumbled and it worked out pretty well. No complaints here other than the fact that I agree that 15 is too high for casting defensively since it effectively scales because of the increase in spell levels that are used later.

Science - cool avatar you switched too - the dwarf ranger is my fav of the iconic characters by far.

By the way, sciencephile, have you seen my fighter talents? Intersted in what you think - I'll be introducing them to my next campaign. Now that we're not in your AoW game anymore - we'll probably run that next.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:


Science - cool avatar you switched too - the dwarf ranger is my fav of the iconic characters by far.

Yeah, I really like the avatar of all the dwarf ones available. Dwarf ranger though? I would have to see it in action to believe it. He is only one step away from wearing sandals, dying his hair green, and wanting to become a "doodad".

Robert Brambley wrote:


By the way, sciencephile, have you seen my fighter talents? Intersted in what you think - I'll be introducing them to my next campaign. Now that we're not in your AoW game anymore - we'll probably run that next.
Robert

Yeah. Some of the ideas that you (and others) came up with are cool. Of course, I think seeing them in action would be better. Too bad the powers that be are trying to destroy D&D by raising the cost of gas (therefore preventing some folks from attending games).

<cf_end_threadjack>


Robert Brambley wrote:
SamRoswell wrote:


What you do at higher levels is tumble past more enemies, tumble through enemies, tumble at full speed, or some combination of the above. With the new rules what you will see is fewer people bothering;

This is simply not true. Sciencephile on here can attest - I have been using the BAB mechanic for both tumble and casting defensive for years now. There is still plenty of tumbling and such being done - and lots of casting defensively.

True there not as much auto-success as there use to be - but its still a sound tactice.

if your choice is to "move away and suffer an attack of opportunity" or "move away as a tumble and possibly suffer an attack of opportunity" the choice is pretty obvious.
...
Robert

But do you also have the 3.P alpha 3 version of the Mobility feat in your game during all that time?

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game wrote:


Mobility (Combat)
You can easily move through a dangerous melee.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge.
Benefit: You do not provoke any attacks of opportunity due to movement this round.

Liberty's Edge

SamRoswell wrote:


But do you also have the 3.P alpha 3 version of the Mobility feat in your game during all that time?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game wrote:


Mobility (Combat)
You can easily move through a dangerous melee.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge.
Benefit: You do not provoke any attacks of opportunity due to movement this round.

Sure but not every rogue wants to spend two feats - dodge and mobility in order to do it.

If you can instead make this possible with the use of a skill you'd probably already be spending point in anyway - why spend the feats - if you weren't intent on doing so initially.

Someone going the two two-weapon route or archer-rogue route have enough trouble being sure to spend the feats to optimize those styles.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

sciencephile wrote:

Yeah. Some of the ideas that you (and others) came up with are cool. Of course, I think seeing them in action would be better. Too bad the powers that be are trying to destroy D&D by raising the cost of gas (therefore preventing some folks from attending games).

<cf_end_threadjack>

Thanks for the vote of confidence, man.

I know the feeling on the gas - I wish it wasn't a barrier for us to still get together each week, but whatever - it is what it is.

Kevin and Carissa are helping me playtest all the new campaign based rules that I'm designing for my game, so that I can see them in action. I wish you could take part - I'm really excited about the talents and the new mechanics on movement.

I was very excited when i saw that my tumbling rules and suggestions actually found its way into the Alpha rules - even if it doesn't stay that way - it gave the onous on playtesting it for many to see how/if it works for them and if/how it works for the Paizo team.

Robert

51 to 60 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Skills & Feats / Acrobatics (ex-Tumble ) - new AoO definition? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills & Feats