The Tumble ability under the Acrobatics skill has be wrecked by the new rules. In the Beta they made it more difficult by making it a DC 15 + the defending creature's HD to move through a threatened space.
But now a tumbler must beat the "Opponent’s Combat Maneuver Defense".
The problem is that:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
Which means that for some reason it's almost impossible for a super nimble halfling rogue to tumble past and elephant (CMD = 30)!!!
The bigger a creature is the higher the CMD.
And a creature's strength modifier is added to CMD.
That's all great, but it should have nothing to do with the Acrobatics tumble check. Strong, slow, lumbering, huge beasts cannot be tumbled around, which is the opposite what is supposed to happen.
BROKEN GUYS!!
I disagree. Broken is at least an exaggeration. It is now, like concentration, just no longer an auto success. If what you want is an auto success then yes it's broken for you. But for me. I like a challenge at every level and occasionally failing a tumble check is not going to ruin my game.
I don't know about in Pathfinder, but in 3.5e you could occupy the same space as something that was so many size categories larger than you. It seems like this should have some bearing on the ability to tumble through its space.
I would think larger sizes would lower DCs to tumble through the spaces, so that the DC might instead be CMD - 2(special size modifier). That way it deducts the size modifier from the CMD and incurs a penalty to the CMD for the size modifier instead.
Also don't see why a creature's strength has any bearing on your ability to tumble past it.
Thats a good point, and i like that at as a houserule: subtract the size modifier from the opponents CMD for this specific situation.
I'm unsure what the rules should be, does STR and size make AoO more likely? I don't have any real life experience tumbling past elephants and Terrasques so I couldn't tell you.
Having said that, I witnessed maybe 50+ tumbling rolls at Gen Con and I only saw one failure. The check isn't that hard, to me it looked like it wasn't hard enough. YMMV.
|
The CMD makes perfect sense to me for this.
You want to tumble past a behemoth monstrous big critter. It's BIG and STRONG and takes up a LOT of space.
Sure, if it stands still you can tumble right past it. A very large creature often has lower DEX scores. Makes sense.
But ya see, it doesn't just stop there when it try to stop you. It interposes its body between you and your destination. Gives you a nice body check and tries to fling you back where you were.
So let's do a mind game and see which is easier to tumble past...
Which do you think is easier to tumble past, Pee Wee Herman or a Lineman of the NFL? That lineman is a LOT bigger than Pee Wee, so you guys are saying it should be easier to tumble past the Lineman... That makes no sense at all. That lineman is going to rip you a new one and HURL you back crying to your mama.
Again, Lineman of the NFL vs Wimbledon Tennis Champion. Yep that Tennis Champ is fast and agile, but you can plow right past him.
Tumbling in combat isn't all about flippy flippy you missed me, it also involves pushing past your opponent and forcing your way past. Otherwise a twig would stop the tumble check...
Hey which would be easier to tumble past, a cat or a rhinoceros? That rhino is going to kill you... no chance at all. I can roll over the cat!
|
|
Maneuvers in general still just don't seem to work. There are too many bonuses to the CMD, and monster stats are almost always way better than PCs. I'm very keen to see how the Bestiary addresses this, but the preview we saw doesn't give me a lot of hope.
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
As one rises in level, Strength and Dexterity both increase. Our 17th level sample Barbarian has a CMB of +24. A CR 13 Storm Giant has a CMD of 40. Our CR 16 Cornugon has a CMD of 45. And both of those are before equipment. She needs a natural 16 to accomplish anything against a monster four levels lower than herself, and she only succeeds on a natural 20 against the fiend one level lower than herself if she can convince the DM that a natural 20 always succeeds on a Combat Maneuver roll.
And that's before we get into the maneuvers themselves:
Grappling no longer requires a free hand, it requires two free hands to avoid an additional -4 penalty to the Combat Maneuver Roll. So our Barbarian has to outright drop her greatsword to succeed on a grab attempt against that Storm Giant on anything other than a natural 20. And it doesn't even do anything unless you keep the grab up for two turns in a row (and the enemy can full attack you in the round in between - no fooling). Verdict: Useless.
Bullrushing is changed all out of recognition. Now, you almost get Domino Rush for free, except that you suffer a -4 penalty to try (which means it doesn't succeed). Also, you still push them one extra square for every 5 points you exceed the DC, which with CMB being what it is you're only ever going to get a 5 square shift off that maneuver. Also, pushing enemies into impassable squares makes your bullrush fail instead of dropping them prone. Verdict: Useless.
Overrun is based on the Andy Collins' petulant errata version where it's always a standard action and can't be combine with a Charge. So you already know it's bad. But they actually made it worse. See, your target can still let you go if they don't want to risk you making a CM check against them, but they might as well take the attack of opportunity because the only thing that happens if you succeed is you moving through their square. To get the knockdown effect, you need to exceed their CMD by five. Verdict: Useless.
Trip You get counter tripped if you fail by 10. So our sample Barbarian will actually trip the Cornugon on a natural 20, but fall down herself on a 1-11. Improved Trip has been divided into two feats (seriously) and the extra attack at the end is now an Attack of Opportunity so you need Combat Reflexes to actually have it stack with the attack you get for them standing up again. Verdict: Useless.
(Disclaimer: Not my work, but I find it hard to disagree with. Again, wanting to see how the Bestiary resolves this.)
Hey which would be easier to tumble past, a cat or a rhinoceros? That rhino is going to kill you... no chance at all. I can roll over the cat!
ahh, but i'll bet the cat would have no problem tumbling past the rhino ;)
i see your point though. The problem with the pee wee vs lineman scenario though is that their both medium sized.
i can see the OPs point when thinking of trying to tumble under the legs of a Mastodon vs. trying to plow over a linebacker...the Mastodon seems slightly easier
Well if you break it down a bit a DC of 30 isn't THAT bad.
Take the dire tiger from the Bestiary Preview for example: CMD 31, CR 8
So, a party of 4 level 8 adventurers are fighting this thing, the rogue wants to set up for flanking, he tumbles.
Mr. Rogue has a Dex of 18(started with 16 and put his ability bumps into his Dex) so that's a +4. 8 ranks in Acrobatics +3 for class skill. Thats a +15 total, without really trying so you'd have to get a 16 or higher (25% chance) to tumble past this challenging foe. Then there are feats, add Acrobatics that's another +2 and Skill Focus for +3. +20 total, you need a 11 or higher to succeed, a 45% chance, not bad for a challenging foe IMO.
This of course doesn't account for any magic item bonuses, racial modifiers, or adverse conditions. And of course at level 10 the bonuses from the two feats double.
I certainly enjoyed tumbling past foes in 3.x but it was too easy, attacks of opportunity meant nothing to most high level monks and roges, at lest in my experience. DC 15 oooo scary. Now the opponents skill and ability MATTERS. The Mammoth isn't just standing there, it's shuffling around, stomping it's feet, waving its trunk/tusks around, one miss step and you get whacked. Maybe, the elephant still has to hit on it's attack.
I could be missing something... but thats my 2 cents
|
|
As an optional house rule I'd consider creatures more than 2 size categories greater than you grant you a +2 bonus to your Acrobatics check when moving through a threatened area, and a +4 bonus when moving through their square(s).
The thing to remember about larger creatures is how much space and area they take up/threaten and to keep moving safely in that area. Its not always about getting past them but being quick enough to avoid their large fists. In the cat vs rhino analogy a cat will avoid a rhinos attacks all day long.
What I would also allow is characters with the improved feint feat to make a bluff check while tumbling through an opponents threatened area /space, if successful the target is considered flat-footed for that movement (no Dex to CMD)
Just some random thoughts before bed :)
|
About time. It makes sense, as far as sense goes in a fantasy world. Tumble was one of those must have, pile all your points in here skills in 3E.
Edit: growing up in a country full of Elephants, try tumbling past one. I'll bet all my money on the elephant crushing you; they are big and swift (hence where the strength and dex comes into play. It happens often enough during festivals and such (the rampaging elephant crushing people part).
People getting crushed at an event isn't really compelling evidece that an eliphant is difficult to tumble past. A crowd of people isn't the same thing as one person. Shooting one duck in a flock is completely different than shooting a single duck.
Also, the linebacker smacking the hell out of you is irrelivent in my opinion also. The consequences of getting caught arent what's in question, it's how hard it is to get caught.
I don't think size should come into play as anything but a penalty. Strength is very very debateable, though that will lead directly into an argument about strength not applying to hit in melee at all.
Personally, I don't like the way the rule book covers this particular aspect of the game, but I also don't hate it enough to go through and write a houserule. Normally I try to do everything in my power to avoid making up houserules. So, I'm going to stick with the rules as writen for now, and if it breaks up my game I'll change it.
I'm not actually playing Pathfinder yet (still 3.5e until I finish this campaign), but when I do play I'll probably leave it as written unless it's a significant problem. Honestly, I don't even think any of my players have points into Tumble in our 3.5e game.
CMD and CMB are very broad abstractions for a wide variety of situations.
With such a broad abstraction there will always be situations where it doesn't fit, or where it's even counter-intuitive (from a simulationist point of view).
So either we can accept the limitations of the abstract (and easy-to-use) rule, or replace it with several more detailed rules for every situation.
But that would be a step back to the 3.5 combat maneuver rules which Jason tried to replace, wouldn't it?
|
|
I like CMD as the DC for grapple, bullrush, trample, etc.
I do not like it as the DC for tumbling.
I will certainly houserule this back to the Beta rule (DC = 15 + BAB) which I thought was just right.
I can understand the desire to make the use of CMD consistent throughout, but grapple is a completely different critter than tumble.
(And I have had LOTS of high-Dex combat tumbler PCs in my games.)
...Hey which would be easier to tumble past, a cat or a rhinoceros? That rhino is going to kill you... no chance at all. I can roll over the cat!
Yeah, but can you roll over the cat without getting hit by it? That cat will prolly hit you 3000 times in 2 seconds! lol!
|
Maneuvers in general still just don't seem to work. There are too many bonuses to the CMD, and monster stats are almost always way better than PCs. I'm very keen to see how the Bestiary addresses this, but the preview we saw doesn't give me a lot of hope.
** spoiler omitted **...
I think you are missing one other thin in these comparisons, you are attempting to trip and manhandle creatures that are designed for physical combat. If I try to wrestle a professional wrestler of my level it takes a long time for a match like that to be over, that is what they are trained to do. I had a monk on monk wrestling match in one of my games recently and it took almost 10 rounds for it to be over because it is hard to perform maneuvers on people trained to use them. I believe you will find that this means that for a lot of creatures like the big hulking monstrosities that they will be hard to perform maneuvers on, but not impossible. In the examples given you did not take into account a couple of modifiers anyways, weapon focus, magic bonus on a weapon, and a weapon with the property for the maneuver. this will add 3 + the weapons enhancement bonus to the checks to perform maneuvers with said weapon. This makes it very feasible that if you want to actually perform these maneuvers successfully you will need the right tools for the job. Also take into consideration the application of spells such as enlarge or even some of the polymorph effects, these will also allow for much higher checks than normal. Lets see where this ends up but if I polymorph into a huge creature and get the +10 strength and +4 additional size modifier and then add enlarge on top of that, since my type doesn't change, for another 2 strength and 2 size bonus; I will be very good at these checks! Creatures already have all of these types of bonuses worked into their stats and players do not, and this is why it seems impossible to make the checks; don't worry its not quite that bad :D
But now a tumbler must beat the "Opponent’s Combat Maneuver Defense".
My first impression is:
So. Much. Easier. to DM.
More balanced than 3.5e, easier to run than the Beta. It's nice when there's some sort of consistent DC, rather than an unique, arcane formula for each ability.
An elephant in 3.5e was a CR 7 critter. A 7th-level halfling rogue should have a +16 Acrobatics check or so without any special feats or abilities. Skill Focus takes that to +19, so she'd hit DC 30 about half the time.
Elephants are not slow, lumbering beasts that are easy to cartwheel around. They are huge, fast, smart, and very lethal. Running beneath a rampaging bull elephant without getting trampled would be a remarkable act.
|
And it is now far easier to tumble past a high-level Rogue in a loincloth than past a high-level fighter in full plate.
Ain't life great ?
People were so keen on nerfing what they felt was overpowered (no fun/challenge in 3.5) that they do not stop to consider if it is still viable (check the "Cleric lost Heavy armor pro" thread for further examples of this all too human failing).
Tumbling was overpowered in 3.5. It had a static DC for a valuable combat function.
CMB could best be described as your bonus to attack-like actions that are enabled by size, rather than hindered by it like standard attack rolls. CMD is your ability to resist such attacks, either through agility or comparable size.
The OP may be right, CMD might not be the ideal choice for setting a tumble DC, because it's counter intuitive to be aided by larger size when attempting to move around someone. Cats and squirrels can really out maneuver humans, for example.
I think CMD was chosen because it's easy to apply. I don't think this rule "ruins" tumble, it makes tumble on-par with maneuvers in difficulty. It's not super-realistic, but it isn't game-breaking either.
Sounds like a good place for a house rule. I would just use 10 + melee attack bonus. For those of you who will answer this with some fallacy about fixing things with house rules, I will repeat: it isn't broken, but it isn't ideal for some players. House rule.
And it is now far easier to tumble past a high-level Rogue in a loincloth than past a high-level fighter in full plate.
Ain't life great ?
People were so keen on nerfing what they felt was overpowered (no fun/challenge in 3.5) that they do not stop to consider if it is still viable (check the "Cleric lost Heavy armor pro" thread for further examples of this all too human failing).
That seems about right to me. A fighter should be deadlier to tumble past than a rogue, no matter what they're wearing.
It's a rule that makes a lot of sense in more circumstances than any other rule I've seen. It might not be a perfect rule, but it's the best I've seen.
Flat DC? Way too easy to get around at even low levels and unrealistic.
15+BAB -> Doesnt' take into account agility or strength
CMD -> Sort of covers it all. Maybe the size bonus isn't perfect but larger creatures generally have more reach and more time to react as you move through their large area of control.
The biggest reason it's a good rule is because CMD is written on every creatures sheet and doesn't need to be calculated on the fly.
|
Dennis, a creature's size and reach is accounted for in the number of successful tumble checks you have to make to get past/through them, unless the game only uses a single check for the entire attempt unlike 3.5 (or unless I misunderstood 3.5's tumble rules lol
I'm going out on a limb here, but tumble NEVER worked that way. Tumble in 3.5 said effectively "Make a d20 roll, add tumble ranks, if you beat 15 then you can move up to half your speed and provoke no attacks of opportunity from one opponent. You must make this roll against each person you WOULD provoke from, at a +5 difficulty higher than the previous. You may increase this DC by 10 to go your full movement."
The biggest reason it's a good rule is because CMD is written on every creatures sheet and doesn't need to be calculated on the fly.
That's exactly how I feel.
The problem with Size mod is outweighed by convenience. I can see that for some people, it's the other way round, but that's an easy fix.
Either way, in 80% of cases, the sizes are medium and therefor the discrepancy is irrelevant.
|
I've been thinking on this...
You shouldn't be trying to defeat your opponent as you tumble past them, it should be them trying to defeat your CMD with their CMB...if THEY don't beat your Defense they miss and you succeed..
Reasoning; Dodge adds to CMD, when you tumble you're dodging...
Also, why does small size Add to melee AC but subtract from CMD? This is something that Jason should have rolled out for feedback and playtesting prior to launch...it's a MAJOR part of the game...
Dennis, a creature's size and reach is accounted for in the number of successful tumble checks you have to make to get past/through them, unless the game only uses a single check for the entire attempt unlike 3.5 (or unless I misunderstood 3.5's tumble rules lol)
We've always run it one check per opponent. I can see how you can read it otherwise, it's not entirely clear. I'm not a super rules lawyer so I'll let other folks worry about it. 3-4+ checks to get around one creature seems much.
Also, why does small size Add to melee AC but subtract from CMD? This is something that Jason should have rolled out for feedback and playtesting prior to launch...it's a MAJOR part of the game...
Again, it's not perfect but it's also not unreasonable. It's harder for a small person to knock a big person down. It's harder for a smaller person to escape a larger person's grasp. The whole point of CMB/ CMD was to take a lot of different types of actions and create one more or less generic way of resolving it. When you start piling up exceptions then the rule becomes more cumbersome than it's worth.
Also, why does small size Add to melee AC but subtract from CMD? This is something that Jason should have rolled out for feedback and playtesting prior to launch...it's a MAJOR part of the game...
Because that's how grapple works in 3.5. Small size means that enemies appear larger and easier to hit with a sharp object (an assumption I believe the 3.5 designers adopted from the FUDGE rpg). In a grapple, being larger is what helps because it is hard to force a heavier mass off-balance. This logic was extended (rightly, I think) to all maneuvers, because they are usually about being forced off-balance (trip, bull-rush, overrun, etc).
There were many conversations during the beta playtest about it, I am sorry that you didn't get a chance to participate. The system that made it into the final did emerge almost entirely from playtest feedback, except the names for the various ratings (CMD was being called "Maneuver AC").
In the end, I think the CMB/CMD solution (although the name is unwieldy) is a great deal simpler while staying close to the success rate of 3.5. Preserving the success rate is important, and it was one of the big flaws (IMO) with the Beta version.
After reading this thread, one point becomes clear.
As you go up in levels you get better at tumbling, but you don't get better at stopping tumbling in the old rules, and that seems slightly counter intuitive. You should be getting better.
Besides, it works both ways, those pesky rogue opponents are going to have a hard time flanking YOUR fighter. ;-)
|
|
People getting crushed at an event isn't really compelling evidece that an eliphant is difficult to tumble past.
Best of luck trying to outrun or "tumble" past an angry elephant in an open field, no matter a gymast or not, alone or not (or a closed alley for that matter). Climbing VERY high is the best escape, outrunning is not an option.
(As I read the rule you provoke each time you move out of an enemy's square, the target only gets one AoO on you for that move action, but that one AoO can hurt a lot depending on the enemy so it's an interesting gamble, see if you can make it through before botching a roll.)
I'm not sure if I'm mis-reading your post,
but each 5' square of movement is not it's own "Move Action". The character's ENTIRE Move Action (or Full Round Move, i.e. Run) provokes only 1 AoO from each opponent whose threat area it passes thru, no matter the number of squares. The only way you should provoke more than one AoO from a given opponent (bar special abilities) is by doing another Provoking action in addition to your Movement. Seriously, your players must be masochists! :-)Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
Also, why does small size Add to melee AC but subtract from CMD? T
This makes sense. It's easier to throw a rock and hit a barn door than it is to hit a tin can, especially if they're dodging and weaving.
And it certainly seemed like it'd be easier to bull rush a tin can golem than a barn door golem.
|
|
Also, why does small size Add to melee AC but subtract from CMD? This is something that Jason should have rolled out for feedback and playtesting prior to launch...it's a MAJOR part of the game...Again, it's not perfect but it's also not unreasonable. It's harder for a small person to knock a big person down. It's harder for a smaller person to escape a larger person's grasp. The whole point of CMB/ CMD was to take a lot of different types of actions and create one more or less generic way of resolving it. When you start piling up exceptions then the rule becomes more cumbersome than it's worth.
This also forgets the maxim that movement only provokes attacks of opportunity once, no matter how many of the squares you move through they threaten. I see the one tumble/opponent as you negating the ONLY AoO they get off your movement triggering.
|
|
I think it's a little of me not presenting my point very well and you misreading Quandary.
The way I read the rule "You only provoke one Attack of Opportunity for each provoking action" is that every time you move outside of a square your opponent threatens, you have a chance to provoke an AoO.
Each tumble check moving out of each square prevents you from provoking. Until you fail a check, in my games, you have not provoked, you've been too much of a ninja for them to see the chance to swing at you.
AKA in my games there's alot of suspense in trying to avoid taking that hit, but if you fail it's still only one hit (but lots of opportunities to fail.)
You could justify it as they took the attack, your tumble check just happened to be you dodging that attack. The game is just nice enough to not count off the AoO as your "one per turn" or one of the ones you get from Combat Reflexes.
I sort of favored this change until I started looking at the bestiary preview. The CMD for some creatures will create an unbeatable defense against skills.
For example, the Elder Fire Elemental. At CR 11 it has a CMD of 46. This makes it virtually impossible to tumble past for even a high level character. Additionally, the high CMD nerfs using Escape Artist to get out of a grapple if the Elder Fire Elemental were to grapple a PC.
CMB is adjusted by feats, spells, and magical items that apply to the task. A magic sword adds its bonus to disarm attempts, for example. Very few effects add to skills in this manner, which hurts a skill based character.
Tumbling in combat isn't all about flippy flippy you missed me,.
I love this quote. It made it worth logging on this morning.
In my games, there will be no easy frolicking around my monsters, nor can you flippy flippy through their space like some joyous cheerleader.
For example, the Elder Fire Elemental. At CR 11 it has a CMD of 46. This makes it virtually impossible to tumble past for even a high level character. Additionally, the high CMD nerfs using Escape Artist to get out of a grapple if the Elder Fire Elemental were to grapple a PC.
Please don't take this as being snarky, but isn't an Elder Fire Elemental like a huge freaking wall of living fire? It would be rather sad if tumbling through this creature's space were anything but a spectacular feat. I don't agree that tumbling past a raging elephant should be easy either, but moving through the space occupied by this creature should be very very hard.
Please don't take this as being snarky, but isn't an Elder Fire Elemental like a huge freaking wall of living fire? It would be rather sad if tumbling through this creature's space were anything but a spectacular feat. I don't agree that tumbling past a raging elephant should be easy either, but moving through the space occupied by this creature should be very very hard.
No offense taken. I used the Elder Fire Elemental as an example because of its CR and CMD. I would prefer a that characters of the appropriate level to the CR have a chance of success. with a CMD of 46 you would need a tumble skill of +36 to have a 50% chance of success. Assuming the Stealthy feat, a +6 Dexterity modifier, and Acrobatics as a class skill, you would need 23 ranks to get a +36.
Oh, wait, you cannot have 23 ranks.
The point I am trying to make here is that CMB can be influenced by multiple types of magic items, spells, and feats. Skills (such as Acrobatics and Escape Artist) do not see that kind of support. As a result, CMD can outstrip skill use. We won't know how bad this is until the bestiary is released, but it is possible that threats of the appropiate CR completely negates a skill use instead of making it difficult. That is not a good thing.
Also, CMD is influenced by magic items, spells, and feats. This means that an opponent with the Dodge feat and shield of faith (deflection bonus) active is harder to tumble past.
Hey, if you want to be an expert tumbler then you have to focus your character on it just like everything else. You need the following things.
- Skill Focus (Acrobatics) +3/+6
- Acrobatic (feat) +2/+4
- Acrobatics as a class skill +3
- Boots of Elvenkind +5
If you want to flippity flip then it costs two feats and your feet slot. You get a tumble bonus of Char Level+13 as soon as you can afford the boots. This increases to CL+18 at level 10. Most DMs allow players to upgrade their items as well meaning that an extra 7500gp added to your boots will give you a CL+23. By the time you're fighting that Elder Fire Elemental, you will probably have little problem pulling it off and it will still be automatic for most easier things to tumble around.
Yes, you have to focus you're character on acrobatics now; it's not a gimme anymore. I personally dig this change. I hated how insanely easy it was to tumble in 3.5.
EDIT: Oops, I forgot to calculate in your DEX modifier. I guess the Elder Fire Elemental would be a gimme too then once you add the +4-7 DEX mod and another +2 for Gloves of Dex if you really wanted to go overboard.
We won't know how bad this is until the bestiary is released,
I see what you are saying, and I agree the most with your comment above. It'll be fun to see how everything is handled in the bestiary.