I've come across one major problem I have with the tumbling rules for Pathfinder. And I'd like to learn why this is so.
It's really damned hard to get by big, strong creatures with Tumble checks now. What's strange is...Tumble is EXACTLY what a character needs for such a situation, especially the roguish types that need to get in close without suffering an AoO.
Seriously, I'm seeing these CMDs at 40+ for the big baddies and I just can't see how a tumbler plans on getting by that without always suffering an AoO.
And with how easy it is to boost CMD, tumbling became very risky all of a sudden.
Is anyone else's game or character suffering from this?
Are there any feats or such that can make it easier to tumble by opponents?
I've come across one major problem I have with the tumbling rules for Pathfinder. And I'd like to learn why this is so.
It's really damned hard to get by big, strong creatures with Tumble checks now. What's strange is...Tumble is EXACTLY what a character needs for such a situation, especially the roguish types that need to get in close without suffering an AoO.
I agree, it is most definitely what they NEED. It does, however, make a lot of sense that big bad creatures with a big bad club are considerably harder acrobatics around. The tougher the monster, the harder it should be. I personally LOVE that CMD is now the DC for tumble checks. I do agree it is a bit high, but if that bothers you, then adjust it a bit. I would, personally, rather see a scaling system that's based off of how powerful an opponent is without being completely skewed in the favor of the massive, high strength, high BAB, high HD critter.
But again, it really does make sense.
Are there any feats or such that can make it easier to tumble by opponents?
I was actually going to suggest this. Your question makes it quite easier. I noticed two neat new rogue talents in the APG today. One allows you to strike an opponent, then take a withdraw action. Another allows you to strike an opponent, then take a full move action without provoking an attack of opportunity, as long as you stay within his threatened space. That sounds like exactly what you're looking for.
Edit: Found them.
Positioning Attack (Ex): Once per day, when a rogue
with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack, she
can move up to 30 feet without provoking attacks of
opportunity. The movement must end in a space adjacent
to the creature hit with the melee attack.Fast Getaway (Ex): After successfully making a sneak
attack or Sleight of Hand check, a rogue with this talent
can spend a move action to take the withdraw action. She
can move no more than her speed during this movement.
If you haven't picked up the APG, yet, I highly recommend it. It's wonderful beyond words.
Are there any feats or such that can make it easier to tumble by opponents?
Not tumble specific, but Spring Attack can help get past a big bad. (Emphasis on a...)
|
Are there any feats or such that can make it easier to tumble by opponents?
Skill Focus (Acrobatics)
-Benefit: You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving the chosen skill. If you have 10 or more ranks in that skill, this bonus increases to +6.Acrobatic
-Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.
The problem I see is that CMD is trying to encompass too many things, so that some aspects of a high CMD don't jive fully with an individual application.
To break it down, here's the various modifiers:
BAB and Dex modifiers - These make perfect sense, and I can see why they would apply.
Strength modifier - How does strength help you "catch" the person tumbling off guard? I can see the correlation between the attack roll and strength, but that already applies when they actually act on the attack of opportunity. What about strength makes you react quick enough to interfere with someone's tumbling and get that AoO? I'm just not seeing it.
Size modifiers - This is similar to Strength. Being big helps with being pushed around, or forced to move or do something you didn't want, etc.
How it helps your reflexes to hit someone flipping past you, I'm not sure. Typically, size modifiers include a REDUCTION in Dexterity, so I'm not seeing this "big people are harder to tumble past" business. Most aspects of being hard to get by are already inherent in the space they take up and their threatened range.
Bonuses to AC - This is what clinches it for me. CMD is clearly talking about defending yourself against some kind of special attack, since bonuses or penalties to AC are modifiers to your CMD score.
If someone is moving past you and trying their darndest to avoid you in the first place, how does being able to avoid that person help you in stopping them from avoiding you?
It's antithesis to the very concept of tumbling past someone.
_
We have a skill that uses BAB to modify it's opposed check: Feint. Why wasn't Feint changed to using CMD? Because it makes no sense that you doing something wonky to fake someone out, effectively convincing them you are doing something you aren't, would be affected by size, strength, ac bonuses, etc.
So why is tumbling, the act of trying to avoid someone in the first place, considered "a special attack" against a target and require a CMD check?
Why is it not opposed by BAB + Dex check?
It just seems like they had a new mechanic to use (a hammer), and things just started looking a little too much like nails. In this case, I feel the Tumbling check should have been treated like a screw instead.
We already had the screwdriver (in the Feint check).
|
|
This is one of those cases where you have to either take it or leave it. Paizo did an amazing job of shoring up all of the little holes in 3.5, simplifying things, and bringing power levels into line. As a side effect of this a number of things ended up being more gamist than not.
To me I can see your gripe against the way it works but to me I think it was done quite elegantly. By the way it functions they allowed it to remain a move action to tumble and grouping it in with the other similar actions. They left it as a skill check instead of a combat maneuver which is to me very nice for those players who wish to invest ranks in acrobatics as opposed to being forced to try and shore up their CMB which was their other option.
The CM system is generally used to deal with elements of physical movement and the finesse involved therein. Your example of feint being similar to a tumble...doesn't hold any water with me simply because tumbling past a creature is more like a bull rush or a reposition than it is to a feint maneuver. When you feint you are misleading the eye, doing a double take and trying to fool the senses, not to get around a gap in someones defense. I don't see any way in which a tumble is an attempt to deceive somebody.
All that being said, there are already 2 feats on the books that allow improvement of tumbles as well as a few rogue talents. I do think there is room in the dodge/mobility feat line for something like Improved Tumble, but I think these complex issues are best left for paizo to deal with in Ultimate Combat no?
The reason I compared it to Feint is due to the mechanics involved: it sets a precedent for using BAB as the opposition to a skill check, without needing to be CMD.
It's not about gamist vs realism, it's more about applying the right bonuses towards the right things.
You don't apply a dodge bonus to your attack roll, right? That isn't a gamist vs realism problem.
The issue I have is that Tumbling is an act of defending yourself against attacks... to have it opposed by another Defense score seems as silly to me as applying a dodge bonus to your attack roll.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been changed to be more difficulty, or streamlined. But if we are willing to have a mechanics for BAB + stat as an opposition to a skill check (with Feint), then why not have the same for the Tumble check?
Ultimately.. it's nearly the same as the CMD, other than shedding the extraneous stuff that doesn't really fit the situation.
It would make more sense to me for tumbling to be opposed by the CMB, since at the very least it's an "I'm defending myself" vs a "I'm trying to threaten you" comparison, rather than "I'm defending myself" vs "I'm defending myself".
CMB still has Strength and Size modifiers, hence why I felt a simple "BAB + Dex" opposition would work the best.
When you feint you are misleading the eye, doing a double take and trying to fool the senses, not to get around a gap in someones defense. I don't see any way in which a tumble is an attempt to deceive somebody.
Emphasis is mine.
See, this is where I have the problem. You tumble to get through a person's threatened spaces, not his "defenses".
So this is why I'm getting the disconnect here.
I personally do not count bonuses like bardic music, haste, shield of faith and others into CMD for tumbling. Makes it easier.
A rogue can have something like a +34 at level 14 anyways if they choose their magical gear right. That and the rogue talent Peerless Maneuver lets them roll acrobatics checks twice. I personally don't see many creatures you'd want to flank with a CMD over 40 anyways. 30ft away from the front of the dragon where everone else is fighting is a dangerous 30 feet...
I feel I have to agree with Kaisoku here. CMD was meant to prevent other characters from doing things to them, not to allow them to do things to other characters (Trip, Bull Rush, Disarm). Armor and size do not make it easier for you to catch things off guard, that's what your CMB is for. If anything, tumble should take the place of the CMD of the character who is doing the tumble. It just makes more sense mechanically and logically.
As I said earlier, I personally don't have much of a problem with how tumble works now. I mostly agree with Themetricsystem in that Paizo did a good job of patching a hundred holes with only half a roll of duct tape and a glue stick.
That said, there have been quite a few good and easy fixes I've seen in just this thread alone for those that are dissatisfied with it. You could remove the AC bonus to CMD, remove the strength bonus to CMD (or both), or allow the tumbler to add their BAB to their acrobatics for tumble checks. Perhaps even change how size modifiers work for CMD for tumbling. Honestly, bigger =/= better in this particular case, heh. A simple reverse of the size benefits and reversion to 3.5 size scaling might be a good fix (I.e., large would be -4).
Well, level<10, max tumble=level+8+dex.
level=>10, max tumble=level+10+dex.
Actually there is a typo here (while the rest of your calculations above are correct), the correct numbers are
level=>10, max tumble=level + 13 + dex
(3 class skill, 6 Skill Focus, 4 Acrobatic)
But I agree with you, a skill can be boosted easily (one of the reasons why in 3.x it was simply too easy to Cast Defensively, being based on Concentration) while values like CMB and CMD need a lot of conditional bonuses which often have a short duration (Haste, Bless, Prayer, Bardic Music... and many of them apply to CMB but not to CMD, anyway) in order to be 'pumped up'. And most Rogues can easily beat even huge CMD values with just a little planning.
Just my 2c.
I don't think that it's really that difficult to overcome, I personally just think that the fact that you're using your defense to catch someone running past you makes very little sense when it's more akin to a combat maneuver itself. (Though using Dex in this case makes even more sense) The only time using CMD as the opposed DC makes sense is when the tumbler is going through an opponents square.
This is really more an issue about sensibility rather than usability (for me personally).
Your example of feint being similar to a tumble...doesn't hold any water with me simply because tumbling past a creature is more like a bull rush or a reposition than it is to a feint maneuver. When you feint you are misleading the eye, doing a double take and trying to fool the senses, not to get around a gap in someones defense. I don't see any way in which a tumble is an attempt to deceive somebody.
Actually, I can see feint and tumble being quite similar. When you feint, you try to deceive them about the state of the battle field. In rules terms, you give them a partial flat-footed condition: they lose their Dex bonus to AC. When you tumble, you try to deceive them about your intentions. You start to pass them on the left, then switch to the right once they've committed to an attack on that side. In rules terms, you give them a partial flat-footed condition: they cannot make AoO.
On a more general note, using a defensive stat does seem wrong. When I'm not trying to hit you, how was a magic effect that deflects blows make it easier for you to attack me? Bonuses from offensive abilities like Weapon Training and Weapon Focus are much easier to understand. Even though the fighter committed to attacking on the wrong side, he is good enough to bring the weapon around to the other side with enough force to land a solid blow.
If anything, tumble should take the place of the CMD of the character who is doing the tumble. It just makes more sense mechanically and logically.
This is really the approach that would make the most sense within the context of CMB/CMD. This would make it so each opponent has to succeed on a CMB vs. ¨Tumble Defense¨ in order to be able to take an AoO. But I think the current system works well enough, as already said it`s maybe more ¨gamist¨ than a system tailored exactly for Tumbles, but it`s an easy mechanic that every player should be familiar with already.
Considering the +3 Class Skill bonus to start off, and that Max Ranks equals out with Full BAB, not to mention the Feats and Items to boost Skill Checks, I don`t think the DC is at all uncalled for. Like the last poster said, it just means that tougher/higher CR enemies are harder to reliably Tumble past, while `mooks` will be easier. Kind of like I`d want the game to work, scaling with level rather than being able to reach a point where you auto-suceed against a static DC.
Personally, I`m very surprised that Feint diverged from the CMD as DC mechanic and made it`s own variant sub-system with ¨something almost like CMB but without the maneuver size bonuses¨, if only because it seems counter to the whole philospohy behind the CMB/CMD unification (as a system specifically for Feint, it seems to make sense, but each Maneuver could probably have a slight variant to CMB/CMD that made more sense to that specific maneuver). I do really wish Tumble AND Feint had been more explicitly definied as ´para Maneuvers´ which simply used Skills for one half of the equation in place of BAB (or both halves, with Sense Motive), but that remains sort of a meta-implication for players to figure out.
To be fair, my rant earlier was about the sensibility of the situation, not that it's harder. It's fine on the difficulty level, but I think that BAB + Dex would get the same result without getting into weirdness.
To be fair, my rant earlier was about the sensibility of the situation, not that it's harder. It's fine on the difficulty level, but I think that BAB + Dex would get the same result without getting into weirdness.
Actually, it would make tumbling too easy once again since you're talking about a reduction of at least 10 points + Strength. Yet again, tumblers would be the king of the mountain and never draw AOO's unless they were extremely unlucky. I think people are just whinging that their toy has been taken away they now have to "think" before they tumble past an enemy. I have a monk who has a good chance tumbling past high level foes because he has invested ranks in it. He would never need to roll more than a 1 using the old rules and that's just stupid.
To be fair, my rant earlier was about the sensibility of the situation, not that it's harder. It's fine on the difficulty level, but I think that BAB + Dex would get the same result without getting into weirdness.Actually, it would make tumbling too easy once again since you're talking about a reduction of at least 10 points + Strength. Yet again, tumblers would be the king of the mountain and never draw AOO's unless they were extremely unlucky. I think people are just whinging that their toy has been taken away they now have to "think" before they tumble past an enemy. I have a monk who has a good chance tumbling past high level foes because he has invested ranks in it. He would never need to roll more than a 1 using the old rules and that's just stupid.
Well you see, the CMB is added to a roll, so it's not a deduction of 10 points but rather a variance of 1 - 20 points added onto the BAB + Dex. Mechanically the difference between CMB and CMD is that CMD is a static 10 while CMB can vary between 1 and 20. That random chance to catch an enemy rolling past you, I feel that is something that should be rolled for.
This was the most-eyerollingest change for me from the Beta to the final version, I think. I just don't see it.
Even so, it's an easy number to use, so I do tend to use it anyway, even though it makes little sense AFAIC.
I'm of mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, I see why the designers chose to go this way. Especially when you think about what it represents: an escapist maneuver vs. an opponent's reflexiveness and alert defense (hence 10+your dex, plus your ability to handle maneuvers). But I also agree with many, it makes more sense for it to be CMB vs Acrobatics... (or, see below).
On the other hand, I dislike "mixed mechanics." CMD should defend against CMB, AC should defend vs. regular attacks, and skills should oppose other skills. When you have CMD defending against a skill, I find that jarring and unintuitive. And I don't really know if the numerical calculations really match up in a way that is fair (but that's it: I don't know). For very much the same reason, I hate how Escape Artist can be used during grapples (especially now that we have Agile Maneuvers for fast people who want to handle combat maneuvers well).
Following the lines of thought of Ion Raven and Quandary, I say yeah-- take Acrobatics out of the equation and make Tumble Through a combat maneuver. It can be the opponent's CMB versus the tumbler's CMD which makes sense and doesn't smash two mechanics together. "Improved" and "Greater" Tumble could boost CMD when tumbling further, with "Greater" giving a further benefit (like maybe opening the opponent up to an AOO himself or something).
As Acrobatics would still be used for jumping, balancing, and other similar abilities, it would still be a useful skill. In fact, still a very useful one. But would also not be a "required" skill anymore to try to boost to the 9s just to be able to use it versus more difficult foes.
I realize that's a fairly radical change, and I'm not sure I'd implement it myself, but it's something to think about.
Changing tumbling to CMD vs CMB means that BAB = tumble skill, which makes Fighters better tumblers than Rogues.
Nah, not for me. If we are good with BAB being used against a small part of a skill (the feinting aspect of Bluff), then I don't see why we aren't good with BAB being used against a small part of Acrobatics in the tumbling part, and just leave it at that.
Shoehorning it into combat maneuvers doesn't sit well with me.
@Phil.L
I don't know where you are getting "10 points" less, unless you are confusing the CMD's 10+modifiers as being something I'm suggesting taking out. Don't be ridiculous.
Whether it's an opposed 1d20 roll or a flat 10 for the base, I'm talking about adding BAB and Dex to that.
And besides. It was originally a set DC for making the checks, so as soon as you make it based on anything scaling, it's going to be harder than what it was before (I'm talking before Pathfinder).
My 2 cents:
The current rules force you to specialize on Acrobatics.
*Bad things: Takes a lot of requirements (skill ranks, Dexterity, skill focus, traits, etc..)
*Good things: Casual users of acrobatics no longer can take those 10-15 ranks in Acrobatics and be as good as a rogue at it. I.e. Any medium level 3.5 wizard should spent a few of their skills to get a very decent bonus to do those DC 15 acrobatics checks, in Pathfinder it isn't enough unless you get a nice Dexterity modifier.
I have a 16th level archer ranger with nice Dexterity and I'm happy with my acrobatics modifier taking in mind the CMD of most enemies, however making it CMD-2 or something else wouldn't hurt.
Wait, at what level are we complaining that DC 40 is too high? Level 1, well, yeah, but even at level 15 its easily do-able.
A competent but not even specialized 15th level high dex character would have: 15 ranks +3 class skill +6 skill focus+5 ability modifier = +29 modifier, DC 40 on a roll of 11.
A specialist would have Athletic +4, and likely a higher dex at level 15, +3 more, stat booster +minor tome. That brings the mod to +36, success on a 4.
A super specialist in a more liberal game (hardly a case for arguing that the system is ok as is, but I think thats already been proven) would have a trait that gives a +1, a luckstone +1, and a +10 skill boosting item. Grand total of +48 modifier, at level 15.
I have yet to have a specialist drop below a 75% success rate in his speciality in Pathfinder rules, assuming appropriate challenges. So far, in my experience playing the game, the CMB/CMD system works very well, even if it can be a bit non-sensical in some interpretations.
shambles through the thread
Our most recent party death was the result of a failed tumble. The monk and the rogue got cornered by some Very Advanced Zombies. Pretty high DC to get out of the triply threatened square, but the monk made it. The rogue on the other hand...I think he went from standing to -22 hp. Yeah, he died. Acrobatics is very useful in most situations, but players have to get out of the mindset of 3.5e, just like with defensive casting.
Zo
Changing tumbling to CMD vs CMB means that BAB = tumble skill, which makes Fighters better tumblers than Rogues.
Nah, not for me. If we are good with BAB being used against a small part of a skill (the feinting aspect of Bluff), then I don't see why we aren't good with BAB being used against a small part of Acrobatics in the tumbling part, and just leave it at that.
Shoehorning it into combat maneuvers doesn't sit well with me.
Well, I said it was pretty radical and I'm not sure even I'd use it. :)
I don't think Rogues should actually be better Tumblers than Fighters--there are a lot of fighting styles that take acrobatic movement into account and it's always irked me that Fighters don't have acrobatics as a class skill (if nothing else, it makes them lose jump as a class skill which borks backwards compatibility conversion a bit). Just look at Xena. ;) (Alright, fine, she also has monk levels.)
But I agree that Rogues should still be good at it, if they want to be (just as now they have to put ranks into Acrobatics to be good at it). If one was in fact going the CMB vs CMD route, maybe there could be a Rogue Talent that allows the Rogue to use Tumble maneuvers at full BAB--and/or gives other benefits to the rogue for tumbling as well. And monks should be able to take "Improved Tumble" etc. as bonus feats, etc.
That said, and even again, though I don't know if I'd do it this way myself, I'm just brainstorming ideas--I don't think it's "shoehorning" to convert it to a combat maneuvers when it already relies on a Combat Maneuver stat to begin with.
And I'm not "good" (though I will accept for the name of not vastly houseruling my game) the use of Acrobatics vs BAB+anything -- again, I highly dislike mixing mechanics (and again, I also hate stuff like using Escape Artist in Grapples). If you leave it as Acrobatics, then it should be a skill check versus a skill check of some variety, IMHO. What skill it should be versus I don't know--maybe just Acrobatics vs. Acrobatics. It's easy to dive past people who can't move flexibly, hard versus someone who just backflips to keep with you.
I strongly agree with the rule change, at least in its effect, if not it's logic. Makes tumbling out of or past danger more difficult, which it should be. For those who say the mechanic makes no sense, I would have to answer that the tumbling rules have never made sense, and have never been, by any stretch of the imagination, realistic. On real battlefields people have never done cartwheels and flips and somersaults in any effective way. Those who tried it ended up living short and little lamented lives, unless of course their opponents were reduced to helpless laughter from watching the pointless display.
These maneuvers are the province of movies and TV shows. I totally understand why people want to recreate what they see their favorite TV character or movie hero do in PF/D&D. After all, it's a fantasy game, and it looks really cool. But leave logic out of it.
The rules are there to keep the game balanced, challenging and enjoyable for all. The new rules do well at that goal. Tumbling past danger is challenging, but neither impossible nor automatic, as it should be.
Following the lines of thought of Ion Raven and Quandary, I say yeah-- take Acrobatics out of the equation and make Tumble Through a combat maneuver. It can be the opponent's CMB versus the tumbler's CMD which makes sense and doesn't smash two mechanics together. "Improved" and "Greater" Tumble could boost CMD when tumbling further, with "Greater" giving a further benefit (like maybe opening the opponent up to an AOO himself or something).
I think it should still use Acrobatics though, that´s almost the point, that it´s a Skill Rank based system, making anybody ABLE to max it (with or without Class Skill bonus) but Skill Monkey classes like Rogue and Ranger are most likely and able to do so (with DEX being the key stat). In other words a ´Skill Maneuver´ to make up for the weakness of non-Full BAB/high skill classes in BAB/CMB based Maneuvers - and Fighters can still be good at Tumble, they just have to disproportionately focus most of their few Ranks in Acrobatics to do so.
Another I approach I thought of, since rolling one check for each opponent to see if they get to take an AoO is cumbersome, is just saying that when you Tumble, you substitute 10+Tumble Modifier for your AC, and each enemy gets to take their AoO against you with that as the DC (applying the penalty for each additional enemy threatening, or other situational mods like difficult terrain, etc). That even has the side effect that the enemy must use their AoO if they want to try and hit you, while the current system lets them keep their AoO for other purposes if YOU roll very good on your Tumble. On the whole, I think it would be slightly easier for the Tumbler than the current system, but because it keys into the attack/AC system there´s plenty of ways to counter that (Flanking directly affects it for one, higher ground as well which makes sense to me, true strike, etc).
Who knows, maybe that could make it into Pathfinder 2.0... Until then I think the current system works fine.
I still really wish that Feint had a more rational (gamist) approach though, rather than the vs. Attack Bonus we now see... it´s just too wierd to have that along side CMB/CMD and Tumble/CMD.