I just noticed that you may now "tumble" past your opponent at normal speed (rather than 1/2 speed or normal speed with a -10 penalty). Is this intentional and is it good? The encumbrance restrictions have been removed as well... somersaulting fighter in full-plate armor anyone? :)
I just noticed that you may now "tumble" past your opponent at normal speed (rather than 1/2 speed or normal speed with a -10 penalty). Is this intentional and is it good? The encumbrance restrictions have been removed as well... somersaulting fighter in full-plate armor anyone? :)
Nice catch! I'm guessing the speed change is for simplification only (one less thing to remember); unless it was meant to make the skill better at getting you past enemies who aren't close to you. 3 squares of tumbling (2 if you're a halfling) may not get you past a large enemy even if you're starting adjacent, so maybe it's a good idea.
As for encumbrance, armor check penalty applies to acrobatics, so maybe that was deemed sufficient without having to remember a separate encumbrance rule. Full plate has a -6 penalty, which leaves somersaulting in full plate very do-able. In 3.5e, you can't use the skill at all if your speed is reduced by armor or excess gear. I guess I often remind myself, when I'm about to call something "impossible", that this is a fantasy game. Still, without a common sense encumbrance rule, it might help to double the armor check penalty for tumbling.
Higher armor check penalties seem to be in order for other skills as well, like Swim. Can you imagine swimming in full plate? Interestingly, Pathfinder also drops 3.5e's common sense Swim rule. In 3.5e, Swim checks are subject to double the normal armor check and encumbrance penalties (and full plate is mentioned specifically as incurring a -12 penalty). Apparently the Pathfinder designers don't find anything done in full plate sufficiently absurd to warrant an extra rule.
Which reminds of a poem by Ogden Nash about a turtle ...
|
Still, without a common sense encumbrance rule, it might help to double the armor check penalty for tumbling.
Ouch, but that does make sense. For all Acrobatics, or just tumbling?
Higher armor check penalties seem to be in order for other skills as well, like Swim. Can you imagine swimming in full plate? Interestingly, Pathfinder also drops 3.5e's common sense Swim rule. In 3.5e, Swim checks are subject to double the normal armor check and encumbrance penalties (and full plate is mentioned specifically as incurring a -12 penalty). Apparently the Pathfinder designers don't find anything done in full plate sufficiently absurd to warrant an extra rule.
Hey, I hadn't noticed that. Good catch. Do we feel the double armor check penalty should remain? It always made sense to me.
|
There is a mod of +5 to the DC, for all Acrobatics checks (except Jump), if moving normal speed.
It's listed in the table on the right column of page 55.
The big question is; are DMs going to rule that the character only needs to be half-speed during the actual maneuver, or enforce the speed penalty over the whole round?
(I.e. if you want to keep the DC low, then Tumbled squares count double, until you're out of threat, then you can speed up to use the rest of your movement versus you declare 'half movement' at the beginning of your turn, and are stuck with it, even after you're safe).
I favour the more generous interpretation, since 'rounds' are an abstract concept of packaging time.
Maybe a more explicit way of presenting this would be to declare all Tumbled/Acrobaticed squares as normally costing double movement, with a +5 DC if you attempt to move quicker?
There is a mod of +5 to the DC, for all Acrobatics checks (except Jump), if moving normal speed.
It's listed in the table on the right column of page 55.
Wow, that's easy to miss, since there's no mention that normal tumbling speed is anything but your normal movement. How is anyone supposed to know it's 1/2? That's only mentioned in the description of Balance.
The big question is; are DMs going to rule that the character only needs to be half-speed during the actual maneuver, or enforce the speed penalty over the whole round?
(I.e. if you want to keep the DC low, then Tumbled squares count double, until you're out of threat, then you can speed up to use the rest of your movement versus you declare 'half movement' at the beginning of your turn, and are stuck with it, even after you're safe).
I favour the more generous interpretation, since 'rounds' are an abstract concept of packaging time.
Maybe a more explicit way of presenting this would be to declare all Tumbled/Acrobaticed squares as normally costing double movement, with a +5 DC if you attempt to move quicker?
I'm not sure a clarification is needed. If any normal tumbling speed were specified, I think it would only apply while tumbling. If there's going to be any clarification, I think it should be about movement in general, whenever doing more than one type of movement in the same round.
|
|
This penalty increases by +2 for each additional
opponent avoided in one round.
This part could be confusing, especially for new players, who may not remember the intent of the rules from 3.5.
When, exactly, are these penalties applied?Imagine a line of enemies, 10' apart. You want to tumble parallel to them, within 5' reach.
..YOU............OBJECTIVE
E1...E2...E3
It is possible, when Tumbling, to leave the area threatened by Enemy 1, still be threated by Enemy 2, and move into the area threatened by Enemy 3.
Does the penalty from previously dodging Enemy 1 still apply, even though he is no longer a threat?
Does the penalty for Enemy 3 only start applying once he becomes a threat? (It would be hard to retroactively amend the previous rolls, if the player was deciding his route as he went...).
Maybe a better wording would be that 'the DC rises by +2, per extra opponent (over the first) currently threatening the character'.
That way, once you're past Enemy 1, he's no longer an issue.
Once you're in reach of Enemy 3, he then, and only then, becomes an issue.
Enemy 2 remains a threat over several squares.
..YOU............OBJECTIVE
E1...E2...E3
I thought I was the only one silly enough to attempt a diagram without monospace font :-)
Maybe a better wording would be that 'the DC rises by +2, per extra opponent (over the first) currently threatening the character'.
Nice idea! That clears it up for me.
Note also, that the DC for Tumbling is now generally more difficult, because it is now increased by the opponent's BAB.
This is much needed, as in 3.5, it became an auto-success by about level 5.
It also helps those melee-types defend more than other classes, which was sorely needed.
Good observation. I agree this was a great idea.
Still, without a common sense encumbrance rule, it might help to double the armor check penalty for tumbling.Ouch, but that does make sense. For all Acrobatics, or just tumbling?
Good question. I hadn't thought about Jump. 3.5e modifies the Jump DC purely by speed (whether resulting from armor, encumbrance, size, whatever). If your movement is 20 feet, you get a -6 penalty. I see that Pathfinder dumps this penalty, which I suppose is consistent with the trend favoring acrobats in full plate pointed out by the OP. Also the running start is cut from 20 feet down to 10 feet, which I actually like.
I don't see anything beyond the usual armor check penalty for Balance mentioned in 3.5e.
Hey, I hadn't noticed that. Good catch. Do we feel the double armor check penalty should remain? It always made sense to me.Higher armor check penalties seem to be in order for other skills as well, like Swim. Can you imagine swimming in full plate? Interestingly, Pathfinder also drops 3.5e's common sense Swim rule. In 3.5e, Swim checks are subject to double the normal armor check and encumbrance penalties (and full plate is mentioned specifically as incurring a -12 penalty). Apparently the Pathfinder designers don't find anything done in full plate sufficiently absurd to warrant an extra rule.
I think so. Thanks, it's nice to see someone who cares as much about rules making sense as they do about rules being simple.
|
Note also, that the DC for Tumbling is now generally more difficult, because it is now increased by the opponent's BAB.
This is much needed, as in 3.5, it became an auto-success by about level 5.
Has anyone really tried to use Acrobatics to tumble past an opponent ?
Since you are usually trying to tumble past a fighter-type opponent, you can safely assume that said opponent has a BAB equal to his level.
Let's imagine that you are a 1st-level character facing a 2nd-level opponent (not so rare in most low-level adventures). Let's also imagine that you are very agile (Dex 20 : +5 bonus), have no armor penalty and are skilled in Acrobatics (class skill taken with 1 rank). This means that to tumble past him, you need to roll 8 or better (=15+2-5-1-3). That gives you a 35% chance of failing and being the target of his AoO.
I personally, would not even try it. Far too risky.
Now, let's see how a higher-level character fares.
Level 10 with 10 ranks in Acrobatics as a Class Skill, Dex 26 : +8 bonus (+2 in stat boost at level 4 and 8, +4 due to magic).
Facing a Level 12 opponent, you would need to roll 6 or better (=15+12-8-10-3), which still gives you a 25% chance of failing.
Facing a level 15 opponent, you would need to roll 9 or better, which equals a 40% chance of failing.
Why anyone would try to tumble past their opponent anymore is beyond me.
I'll take a 35% chance of failing 6 times out of 10 ;D
Seriously though those are good odds, after all if everyone could just tumble pass why even give AoOs?
|
|
I'll take a 35% chance of failing 6 times out of 10 ;D
Seriously though those are good odds, after all if everyone could just tumble pass why even give AoOs?
The problem here is that this "improvement" greatly hinders the tumbling strategy used by Monks and Rogues who will definitely see their opportunities on the battlefield greatly reduced (especially the rogue who will find it far more difficult to position himself adequately for making full use of his Sneak Attack). It is a whole dimension of combat and character building based on it which is erased by this "small" change.
I also feel it rather odd that the rule makes it far easier to tumble past a rogue with a high Acrobatics bonus (ranks +dex bonus) than a fighter with none.
And last but not least, there are several other actions that can give AoO to your opponents, but their treatment is far different :
- Disarm and Trip : taking a feat completely removes the AoO for your opponent.
- Casting a spell : the DC on your Spellcraft roll to avoid the AoO is based on the spell level and not on your opponent's BAB.
I feel that the last example is the most noteworthy, as it also involves using a skill to avoid AoO when making an important combat action. Why then is it spared the taking account of the opponent's BAB ? What is the rationale here that would make the treatment that different from Acrobatics ?
Please note also that the Spell level is at worst equal to 1/2 the character's level, why an opponent's BAB is most often equal to the character's level, or even higher. The increased DC is not at all commensurate between the 2 of them.
I agree though that making everyone able to tumble efficiently is awkward. Maybe then it could become a special ability reserved to Rogues and Monks or a Feat (for example a kind of Improved Mobility), and only usable in light or no armor in both cases.
to me the following makes a lot more sense...
attempting to tumble through an opponent's square provokes an attack of opportunity,
with no Dex bonus to AC, but deflection bonus to AC applies,
and this is considered a rear attack
it's an instinctive combat reaction when an opponent exposes themself like that
if opponent is flat-footed, then no attack of opportunity, unless they have the Combat Reflexes feat.
if tumble upon the flank/rear of an opponent engaged in melee, then no attack of opportunity.
if this attack of opportunity fails or none given, then from "what the?" factor,
flat-footed until thier turn next round and cannot take an action for remainder of this round
acrobatics modifier to avoid AoO only applies where an AoO would occur
this does not scale to reflect combat nous though
so modify DC by +(tumbler's BAB - opponent's BAB) as well
meaning, knowing how to tumble is one thing, but knowing where and when is crucial in combat