|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Khrysaor wrote:
GMs not allowing items beyond what's listed in the book is fiat. The book lists rules to making items. There's also enchantments to armor that provide +15 for some skills that are listed in the book.
I don't see the validity to your arguments as to changing the predetermined system that works until you apply GM fiat.
You have it backkwards, Making item not listed in the book is GM fiat. Those "rules" about item creation are really guidelines.
I'm not saying it's impossible to achieve but calling it easy to get implies that it's realistic and I certainly don't believe that you can get it without sacrificing a significant portion of your effectiveness in other areas.
Also I think most DMs would disagree with you that just because you could make something using the custom item building rules means that they're obligated to allow it or allow it at the cost those rules suggest.
@Nicos
Yet you need combat expertise or power attack and then another feat, or more, to be effective with other combat maneuvers. How is this any different?
The rules for making items are rules. You can't arbitrarily say something isn't a rule when it doesn't suit your needs. Why not just say The rules for CMD should just be different because they're just guidelines. It works for anything they have published in their "rule" books.
@gnomersy
I don't get how you think 30 in a stat is hard to get. I just gave you an example that costs 7 of 15 points in the initial point buy and 91,000gp of the 880,000gp a level 20 should have.
I also don't think you speak for the gaming community and have no right to say most of the GMs would disagree with me.
Calling the item creation rules a "custom" rule set has no validity. The entire book is written, proof read, and published by Paizo. How can you claim any one thing within as custom?
Rules are rules. They exist in the entirety. To arbitrarily remove or add anything is GM fiat. Using the rules provided is not fiat.
Khrysaor wrote: The rules for making items are rules. You can't arbitrarily say something isn't a rule when it doesn't suit your needs. Why not just say The rules for CMD should just be different because they're just guidelines. It works for anything they have published in their "rule" books. I've heard it said quite a few times that the rules for making items are more like guidelines.
The thing is, it's a difference of making an item with those guidelines as opposed to getting an exact item that's been made already, and is published in the book. A +20 Competence bonus item has not been published in any books (that I know of) and so whether or not a GM allows them is indeed variable. At least personally, I'd be wary about letting in an item that provides a flat +20 bonus to a skill, which would stack with all ranks the person has to begin with (I might allow it, but I can certainly see where some GM's wouldn't).
You can reverse engineer the costs of every item listed in the book with the rules provided for magic item creation. They are the rules the developers used to price the items listed. Saying they're guidelines on a website where no one but the developers are official, does not change the fact that the books published by those developers are not the official rules.
Edit: there's a thread on here already from SKR asking people their unanswered crafting questions that will be further elaborated on in an upcoming crafting compendium. Until such a time that that book is published, the official rules on crafting exist in the "core rule book".
Edit2: and since this isn't a thread about crafting we should drop the never ending battle on it.
With a +5 item (boots of elvenkind) the numbers I posted are only 5 worse and means you have a 70% success rate against most CR 20 monsters, instead of a 95% success rate. I don't get how this is bad.
Khrysaor wrote: You can reverse engineer the costs of every item listed in the book with the rules provided for magic item creation. They are the rules the developers used to price the items listed. Saying they're guidelines on a website where no one but the developers are official, does not change the fact that the books published by those developers are not the official rules.
No it is not, at least not in all cases. More than once a developer have said DM have to be wary of cuestom magis items even if those items follow the magic item creation guidelines. Creating custom magic items is the houserule.
having said that, a +10 Skill item is hardly gamebreaking I suppose most DMs would allow such thing.
Still on the crafting because you have nothing to argue why acrobatics should be changed?
Yes, they are the rules the developers used in pricing the items listed.
There are only a select few "named" items that stray slightly from the rules provided, and of those, the minor difference is in a single property of the item that uses the majority of the rules for the majority of the item. The many threads on celestial armor and the value of the celestial property come to mind. 99% of the listed items use these rules.
As I've said before, there's already enchantments that can provide up to a +15 competence bonus on skills listed in the CRB. Its not game breaking because it already exists.
The rules exist because the publishers can't list every possible item variation. Otherwise the books would cost more than anyone would be willing to pay.
Edit: Please stop arguing crafting and get back to the topic of why acrobatics should be changed. I haven't seen any compelling arguments to warrant any change in the existing system.
Khrysaor wrote: If you think 10,000gp and 2 feats is too much, you have absurd expectations. Drop the feats and it's a 40,000gp item from the 880,000gp a level 20 pc is supposed to have from WBL.
if your rogue doesn't have a 30 Dex or close to it by level 20, you're doing it wrong.
30 Dex is having a 19 start with +5 from leveling and a +6 item. It's not hard to get.
If you think you can keep up with the scaling system that is CMD without scaling your skills in similar fashion, you're doing it wrong.
I didn't say that Dex 30 isn't possible. I said it's stupid that a DEX 30 char with Tumbling as class skill and max rank at 20th level, can only succed with a 20 in the die roll unless he has feats and magic items. It's a frigging 20th character with MAX ranks in the skill, who started with the maximum possible DEX, with a race with dex bonus, bought the best enhancing DEX item, and pumped dex for 20 levels straights. And it only succeed on a 20.
I don't think a character with max possible bonus in a ability, a race with bonus to that ability, max enhancement to that ability, max level and full ranks in the skill related to that ability should have 5% chance of success. I don't need two feats, 20 ranks, 30 to INT, and +10 bonus from magic items to Spellcraft to be able to identify high level magic items, for example.
Beyond that, about the other line of debate, any item with bonus to skills above +5 require DM permision. Your DM might allow it, other DM might not. Not every DM in the world allow custom magic items.
Compare it with casting defensively. Even without the +10 item and with as much as one feat a 20 level full spellcaster can cast without provoking 95%+ of times.
Khrysaor wrote: @Nicos
Yet you need combat expertise or power attack and then another feat, or more, to be effective with other combat maneuvers. How is this any different?
The rules for making items are rules. You can't arbitrarily say something isn't a rule when it doesn't suit your needs. Why not just say The rules for CMD should just be different because they're just guidelines. It works for anything they have published in their "rule" books.
That also works for you. The entire text under item creation are rules. That includes the piece of text that say:
"Many factors must be considered when determining the price
of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price
is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced,
using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines
summarized on Table 15–29"
That's a rule too.
First and foremost,
these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact
differences between items. The price of a magic item may
be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.
That's a rule too. Just because the guidelines in Table 15-29 allow to build "rings of teleport" with 1 charge for 172g, it doesn't mean the DM *has* to aprove it. That's why you have the two paragraphs that I quoted above.
@Nicos
Try comparing apples to apples not to oranges. Tumbling is a combat maneuver. It is vs CMD not random DCs for casting defensively. You have to know what the action is before you can make appropriate comparisons and every combat maneuver requires two feats or else you provoke AoO. Tumbling is no different.
@Gustavo
This isn't a thread about crafting. I've asked politely several times to not argue crafting and argue the point of this thread.
Look at every other facet of this game. You require feats and items to be good at things. How is this any different? All I'm hearing from anyone is that you EXPECT to have to invest nothing to be good at everything. This is a common theme on these boards, with rage threads on why this is bad or why that sucks. The system exists and has existed for many years. It works. Some things have been errata'd along the way and many more have stood the test of time.
If no one has any valid argument as to why this needs to be changed then the topic is done. I've provided two options that give you a 95% success rate for most CR20 monsters, and at a minor investment from the PC. Everything in this game costs something to become good at.
Nicos wrote: two feats is certainly too much. I can see buying items to improve some ability, but seriously two feats?? I feel the same way to get +2 DC class of spell 2 feat, 2 feat to get +2 damage all the time, 2 feats to do CBM with out the target get AoO back. 2 feat to Channel alot and not heal the bad guys. 2 feat to Summon bigger and better monster.....Realy.....Point is D&D is game of choices you can not do every thing with every PC. Pick your trick and do it.
In pathfinder base PC all get 10 feats. So investing 20% of them to do your trick in small price to pay.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Khrysaor wrote: @Nicos
Try comparing apples to apples not to oranges. Tumbling is a combat maneuver. It is vs CMD not random DCs for casting defensively. You have to know what the action is before you can make appropriate comparisons and every combat maneuver requires two feats or else you provoke AoO. Tumbling is no different.
For start, tumbling is not a combat maneuver, second the DCs for casting defensively is not random, third for combat maneuvers I do not have to spend skill ranks.
it is not about having to expend resorcues, it is about that tumblins requires too much.
custom magic itmes, max dex (even a wizard do not need max int to cast defensively at level 20), skill ranks, and two feats, it is absurd.
Tom S 820 wrote: Nicos wrote: two feats is certainly too much. I can see buying items to improve some ability, but seriously two feats?? I feel the same way to get +2 DC class of spell 2 feat, 2 feat to get +2 damage all the time, 2 feats to do CBM with out the target get AoO back. 2 feat to Channel alot and not heal the bad guys. 2 feat to Summon bigger and better monster.....Realy.....Point is D&D is game of choices you can not do every thing with every PC. Pick your trick and do it.
In pathfinder base PC all get 10 feats. So investing 20% of them to do your trick in small price to pay.
- spell focus works with all spells of the same school you cast, not to mention that can made your spells very powerfull.
- weapon specialization needs weapon focus, but weapon focus is good by itself and also add to the CMB of certain combat maneuvers. and besides,WS is not necesary for fithers to kill things.
- without the cannel feats you still can channel.
- summoning can be a good idea without the summoning feats, monstesr have versatility, you can use them in diferent situation. very diferent with tumble (I know, acrbatics help with other things, but the DC for those other things is probably not as high)
And you not need max stats for channel,summoning, hit things hard and cast powerfull spells, nor max skills, nor custom magic items.
All thing you listed can be done without the expenditure of a feat, the feats just make you better. For tubmle you need the feats, the magic item, the skill points and max dex to just do the basic thing.
So no, your coparision is very flawed.
Tumbling is not a combat maneuver? Then why is it vs CMD? Seems pretty straight forward to me. It comes with its own set of rules for how it interacts as a combat maneuver.
The DCs for casting defensively are static values based off of what level the spell you're casting. Since the level of the spell is indeterminable until cast, the value of the DC is random. It is not a static number for every spell.
Other combat maneuvers require less because the acrobatics skill provides more than just tumbling as you'd like to argue. Along with the feats required providing more benefit than just to tumbling.
The developers tried to simplify pathfinder by combining skills like tumbling, jumping, balance into a single generic skill. Acrobatics.
The pont of Tom's argument and mine has been that you need to invest in things to be competent with them. This means feat, skills, money. Only investing into a portion of these doesn't give you mastery, it gives you mediocrity.
Please figure out an argument that is constructive and provides examples on how this maneuver is flawed that is in conflict with other similar maneuvers. Criticallly attacking other people's suggestions without basis is not grounds for argument.
Khrysaor wrote:
The pont of Tom's argument and mine has been that you need to invest in things to be competent with them. This means feat, skills, money. Only investing into a portion of these doesn't give you mastery, it gives you mediocrity.
Tom`s point is a bad point. all the feats i those example make you better at certain thing, summoning for example.
With augment summoning the monster beomes stronger, that is cool. But you do not need the skills, the magic item, etc etc to summon.
Without those two feats you better do not try to tumble.
Tumbling requieres too much resorces just to just succed.
Combat expertise + improved maneuver feat to avoid AoO.
Power Attack + Improved maneuver feat to avoid AoO.
These maneuvers usually require a weapon with a good enhancement bonus or other item to boost your CMB to better your chances of success.
He also listed how everything in the game has a general 2 feat requirement to be good at those things. Without those feats you're just mediocre. in the case of maneuvers, you will provoke AoO for anything you try.
I think your problem is that you think a pc of level x should be an equal challenge to a CR x monster. The thing is that a monsters CR is an average challenge to the APL of a party of 4 players. A level 20 character is not an equal match to a CR 20 monster.
My own 2 cents:
Tumbling is fine as is. I think that Khry has made the point it does not take that much to still tumble past monsters at level 20, let alone npcs. The argument that you shouldn't have to buy gear or feats to do it well is absurd. Plus, there are yet other ways to boost stats. By level 20, a 30 in your classes primary stats is a little the low side.
18(16 base + 2 racial) + 5 levels + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent bonus(tomes or wishes) = 34 dex. Which you could get as high as 38 if
min maxed harder(a 17/18 stat investment and a +4 dex mod race like goblin).
Point is, at this level of play where stuffs "harder" to do, the game gives You the means to do it. Sure in a no magic game you couldn't do it, but then You got a lot more problems than just that...
Khrysaor wrote: Combat expertise + improved maneuver feat to avoid AoO.
Power Attack + Improved maneuver feat to avoid AoO.
These maneuvers usually require a weapon with a good enhancement bonus or other item to boost your CMB to better your chances of success.
He also listed how everything in the game has a general 2 feat requirement to be good at those things. Without those feats you're just mediocre. in the case of maneuvers, you will provoke AoO for anything you try.
I think your problem is that you think a pc of level x should be an equal challenge to a CR x monster. The thing is that a monsters CR is an average challenge to the APL of a party of 4 players. A level 20 character is not an equal match to a CR 20 monster.
Power attack hep with damage, lunge allow to use maneuvesrs against medium characters without the improved maneuver feat, weapons with enhacement is something I would want even if I do not use manuevers (hit more, more damage, ignore most DRs out there).
By the other hand, you are expending a lot of resorces mostly just for tumble.
Not to mention that it need a very specialized type of character to acomplish that. For example strengh based rogues are screw, even with the skill, the magic item and the feats.
Nicos wrote: By the other hand, you are expending a lot of resorces mostly just for tumble.
Presumably, you're not just tumbling for the sake of tumbling; you're tumbling as a means to an end. Like to get positioning for massive sneak attack damage. Sneak attack damage which requires no additional feats or expenditure. So instead of Power Attack and a Belt of Strength, you're spending resources to allow you to sneak attack at will.
Otherwise, you could just get Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack to move past enemies and get a free shot at them as a bonus.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Darth Grall wrote: My own 2 cents:
Tumbling is fine as is. I think that Khry has made the point it does not take that much to still tumble past monsters at level 20, let alone npcs. The argument that you shouldn't have to buy gear or feats to do it well is absurd. Plus, there are yet other ways to boost stats. By level 20, a 30 in your classes primary stats is a little the low side.
18(16 base + 2 racial) + 5 levels + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent bonus(tomes or wishes) = 34 dex. Which you could get as high as 38 if
min maxed harder(a 17/18 stat investment and a +4 dex mod race like goblin).
Point is, at this level of play where stuffs "harder" to do, the game gives You the means to do it. Sure in a no magic game you couldn't do it, but then You got a lot more problems than just that...
If dex were strength or int I'd agree with you but it's not, and anyone with that much focus in dex except a gunslinger is going to be miserably useless in combat unless the GM is allowing agile weapons or dervish dance.
It's not that it's a "no magic" game it's that Khry is inventing magic items that don't necessarily exist in everyone's game as justification for the ease with which he can tumble late game. And that's like me saying "Oh rogues don't do good damage? Well if you use agile weapons to add dex to damage they're fine." Sure it might be true but it's not something you have any reason to expect at every table you sit down at.
And saying that it doesn't take much is kind of laughable it's 10% of your total feats probably 10% or more of your skill points, and all of your stat ups over leveling to achieve, along with a tome and a belt in the applicable stat. And lets say you don't have access to the items(which you might not) your chance goes from 5% of failure to 50% failure which is awful odds.
theishi wrote: Quote: I think there is something to be said for the idea that the highest CR enemies should be tough to tumble around. Just like the way they are going to be protected with SR, DR, energy resistance, and a host of other defensive abilities to negate and counter high level fighters and wizard. Why shouldn't they be capable of negating an important rogue tactic? Why is it difficult more difficult to tumble around them then to feint them? The game mechanics tie preventing tumbling to BaB, which lends the assumption that increasing the BaB teaches generic fighting techniques which includes stopping tumblers. Tumbling past someone and feinting them seem like similarly rare battle techniques. By that I mean you see one approximately as often as the other. If the generic training in BaB does not include how to prevent feinting, then it should not teach how to stop tumblers. Mechanically, feinting requires you to give up a standard action while tumbling is not an action. Making feint more likely to succeed balances it out.
Also, from the way I read it, it takes a 3 feat chain culminating in Disengaging Feint to move past an opponent without provoking an AoO. Acrobatics can do that baseline, on any character, though it takes an investment to do it well.
yeti1069,
about the bookkeeping. assuming it was worth it to give the tumbler a small 'give-back' bonus to compensate for how CMD, which while overall a brilliant mechanic for most maneuvers, is a composite in such a case of incorrect factors (Strength, Armor, Size), that is, assuming there is a mechanical need to apply a more simulationist method, what do you suggest?
my thoughts were that rather than trying to modify CMD, or creating an alternate 'Acro-CMD' (like is done for Feinting), that the tumbling character should take a bonus (or penalty) to his roll.
a problem with the question "what kind of armor is that guy wearing over there?" is things like masterwork, enhancement, etc.
also, it has since been noted that Max Dex already takes heavy armor into account as a CMD factor (i looked this up, and it says it limits "Dex bonus to AC" but not "other Dexterity-related abilities" - so if done right should apply to CMD, no?)
so that leaves Size. the biggest offender. larger size, though granting a penalty to attack rolls, grants a bonus to CMD! a one-degree argument would have Size play no role in Acro-CMD. my argument would have it play a reverse role in Acro-CMD.
hence i'll remodify:
Acrobatics circumstance modifiers
...
this bonus/penalty overpowers the disparity, and resembles the +4 to Stealth that smaller characters enjoy.
and besides that, a large creature is going to have a tremendous Strength score, and very likely some natural armor (no Max Dex), so i would argue that this hardly makes tumbling easy. it just gives the little guy a fair shot...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tom S 820 wrote: Nicos wrote: two feats is certainly too much. I can see buying items to improve some ability, but seriously two feats?? I feel the same way to get +2 DC class of spell 2 feat, 2 feat to get +2 damage all the time, 2 feats to do CBM with out the target get AoO back. 2 feat to Channel alot and not heal the bad guys. 2 feat to Summon bigger and better monster.....Realy.....Point is D&D is game of choices you can not do every thing with every PC. Pick your trick and do it.
In pathfinder base PC all get 10 feats. So investing 20% of them to do your trick in small price to pay.
The difference is you can make a wizard without the 2 +1 DC feats, and it works. It's just 10% difference in success. With tumbling, you either have the two feats (AND a custom made magic item that increase your tumble), or your success ratio is 5%. You are either uber-specialized, or you suck. A specialiced necromancer with +2 to necromancy can cast a transmutation or enchantment spell with fairly decent chances, only slightly less. A rogue with TWENTY RANKS in tumble, a dex-bumping race, all his level-up improvements to dex, fails 95% of the time. I don't even ask about, say, a dual wielding fighter with 17 ranks in acrobatics and Dex 26 (you know, someone who is like twenty times better than Captain America). He doesn't even has a chance to success.
The only people not seeing clearly here are those that think acrobatics is too hard, when I've clearly given an achievable solution that doesn't hinder a character who intends to tumble. You all have unattainable expectations that would break the game. It's intended to be challenging and fun, not cake walk and boring.
If you don't want to invest skill points, buy a +2 int headband for 4000gp that has the acrobatics skill tied to it.
Don't invest any of your initial point buy or dont use your level stat bonus and get a +5 Dex tome for 137,500gp.
Investing half your point buy into your primary stat is whats expected to play a competent character. Spreading yourself thin makes for a mediocre PC that's not very capable at much of anything.
Again...
+20 ranks - 4000gp headband or just use your natural skill points. Dex based classes tend to be skill monkies.
+10/12 stat - 7/15 point buy, +6 belt (36,000gp), +5 level bonus or +5 tome (137,500gp)
+3 class
+5/10 - 2500gp item or 10,000gp item if your GM approves (elixirs of tumbling are 250gp for +10).
+10 feats - 20% of your overall leveling feats (some races even get bonus feats they can apply to these)
There's also traits to make it a class skill and give a +1 trait bonus. Or even use wisdom in place of dexterity.
+48/55 total gives you either a 70%/95% success rate vs almost all CR20 creatures.
Again that's a 70-95% success rate to tumble around a creature that's an average challenge for 4-5 party members to kill.
Removing the need for the feats means anyone who takes the feats moves freely through ANY combat without rolling. Seems overpowered for some reason. Wish my rogues could freely move to flank whenever they choose to have sneak attacks whenever I'd like.
I guess it's not enough for you that a creature that takes 4-5 PCs to take down with an average challenge only has a 5-30% chance to stop you from tumbling around it without provoking. You are, after all, a one man show.
As far as any standard game goes, this is easily attainable.
Please come up with a valid argument as to why this needs to be changed because as far as I can tell, you just want more for nothing.
Edit: you should also stop making up numbers and assuming you need items that aren't listed. Please provide examples and not just arbitrary numbers that have no validity at all.
gnomersy wrote: If dex were strength or int I'd agree with you but it's not, and anyone with that much focus in dex except a gunslinger is going to be miserably useless in combat unless the GM is allowing agile weapons or dervish dance.
It's not that it's a "no magic" game it's that Khry is inventing magic items that don't necessarily exist in everyone's game as justification for the ease with which he can tumble late game. And that's like me saying "Oh rogues don't do good damage? Well if you use agile weapons to add dex to damage they're fine." Sure it might be true but it's not something you have any reason to expect at every table you sit down at.
And saying that it doesn't take much is kind of laughable it's 10% of your total feats probably 10% or more of your skill points, and all of your stat ups over leveling to achieve, along with a tome and a belt in the applicable stat. And lets say you don't have access to the items(which you might not) your chance goes from 5% of failure to 50% failure which is awful odds.
Sure dex usually doesn't directly add to damage, but lots of people complains that DD or Agile weapons upset game balance, and reduces the value of STR and that's why those aren't in core as you have said. However, even so I don't think that in the case of a rogue that stops it from being their primary stat. Their damage(however mediocre) comes from their ability to hit and having a higher dex helps, as well as pumps their ac. If it boils over to pumping their a skill too, that's just icing on the cake.
Custom item aside, which I agree is questionable; you can still get a huge bonus
-base(20 ranks and 3 for a class skill): +23
-Elixir of Tumbling: +10 compentance acrobatics for an hour, 250gp
-Dex: +12(not the +14 that you could get)
-Feats(Acrobatics +4 and Skill Focus +6): +10
-Boots of Striding and Springing: +5 enhancement 5,500 gp
That's +48 Tumble for... What? 5,750 gp and 2 Feats. Not shabby at all before any sacred/luck/trait/morale bonuses you might garner.
And you know, it's not just for tumbling; all these bonuses apply to all acrobatics and have other desireable effects. And if at level 20 you don't have access to these items(haven't played a game where magic belts, boots, and potions don't show up) you've got big problems, like do you have a +5 weapon even?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
All I know is that with Dex 20 and max ranks, my rogue would fail at tumbling with 18, 19, even a 20 on the die. If I failed with a 13 on the die, or even a 15, I'd shrug and move on. But a maxed-out skill that fails against level appropriate enemies on an 18 indicates a broken skill.
People can argue (and obviously are) that mandatory custom magic items and a feat tax can make everything okay. (As long as the rogue doesn't try tumbling at full speed (-10) or through an enemy's space (-5), that is.) If they think it's okay, there's clearly nothing anybody can say to convince them otherwise. And that's fine; different strokes and all that.
Me, in my game, I want to de-emphasize the requirement of magic items to perform a class function -- arguably, in the case of a rogue, a vital class function, since tumbling is usually necessary for offense (to achieve sneak attack and thus perform in combat) and defense (to get out of dangerous situations in which a warrior would go toe-to-toe). I want to encourage people to spend feats on abilities beyond those that should be provided by skills. And, on the other hand, I want to encourage mobile, cinematic combat.
So the base tumble-to-avoid-AoO DC is 10+BAB+Dex. It's certainly not guaranteed for any of the PCs in my game (but then, none of my players have maxed-out point-buy DEX, maxed-out skill-enhancing feats, and custom skill-enhacing magic items), but it's reliable enough that they use it. If any of my PCs did want to make those investments for guaranteed tumbling, I'd be fine with it.
That works for me.
Khrysaor wrote:
Don't invest any of your initial point buy or dont use your level stat bonus and get a +5 Dex tome for 137,500gp.
How that is not a considerably investment?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The funniest thing about this is that, amid all the talk about "investment," the "tumbling is fine" folks haven't mentioned the simplest "fix" ... just don't tumble.
I mean, winged boots are only, what, 8000 gp to make? No feats, no skill ranks (the base Dex and ranks from the boots will be enough for simple movement). They can't allow moving through an enemy's space, but nobody seems to be factoring that in anyway. (And, of course, they can often just go over an opponent's space.)
So why not just suggest winged boots? Why waste your time suggesting custom magic items and maxed-out tumble-builds?
(Speaking for myself, it's because I like the visual and cinematic style of a tumbling combatant. I'm willing to pay skill ranks for it. Of course, in order to encourage the use of skill over a magic item, the skill needs to be workable.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
But lets see a short list of other skills, to see if it reasonable to invest that much for tumble.
- Knowledges: With max rank, class skill, 30 int, the wizard autosucced against most DCs. NO feats or items needed.
-Intimidate: max ranks, 24 cha, class skills, a feat, the bard is demoralizing most of things. just one feat, no magic items, no max cha.
- UMD: max ranks, class skills, one feat, 30 cha, the oracle needs a 2 to succed at the maximun DC. No magic item, just one feat.
- Disable device: Max ranks, class skills, 30 Dex, the rogue is disabling 9th level traps. No feats, no magic items.
@ Jeff
Look back at Toms explanation on the first page. He lists the values you could have and the ease with which you can tumble past things up to level 10. Then the naysayers cried it works fine at low levels but breaks down at high levels. I then posted the ease with which this is attainable at high levels. I shouldn't have even mentioned a custom +10 item as it just made people cry more. Except there's elixirs for 250gp that do exactly that.
If you need an 18-20 and still potentially fail, you have something fundamentally wrong with your PC to allow them to tumble.
This game was designed with all the features of it taken into account. Claiming you don't have access to some of them means your GM has changed the parameters. Using the rules as written with the items, feats, abilities available correspond with the CMDs of CR appropriate encounters. If you don't keep your abilities scaling, you won't keep pace with the scaling CMDs.
@Nicos
You just don't get it. Auto succeeding tumble lets you move freely through a battlefield to do whatever you want. It breaks the game. Feel free to house rule your home games to easy mode but don't cry that a system is broken because you don't want to make the investment.
If tumble was made easier, anyone who makes the investment can move at full speed through enemies squares with no penalty or fear of failure. Easy mode is not fun.
Khrysaor: The problem with your claims is that there is literally over 8 years of playtest data to prove that "easy tumbling" is not broken: The entire length of the D&D 3E system.
The DCs were "low" (I'd call it "reasonable") and yet, somehow.... the monk, rogue, and bard were not considered overpowered classes. The only people who had a problem with 3E tumble were the ones who wanted some fighter dude to be able to stand in a hallway and block it off, regardless of any specific skills or training he may or may not have had. Then you point out the teleportation is a thing and they covered their ears and went "la la la la can't hear you."
The game is much more fun with mobile combat. The system already heavily rewards you enough as is to not fight in a mobile fashion: the power of the full attack action.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Khrysaor wrote: The only people not seeing clearly here are those that think acrobatics is too hard, when I've clearly given an achievable solution that doesn't hinder a character who intends to tumble. You all have unattainable expectations that would break the game. It's intended to be challenging and fun, not cake walk and boring.
If you don't want to invest skill points, buy a +2 int headband for 4000gp that has the acrobatics skill tied to it.
No, the problem is that you believe only Batman should ever *try* to tumble. You know, the guy with maximum dexterity, maximum ranks in the skill, maximum feats, and custom self-made gadgets with +10 bonus to it. Everybody else, should fail misserably: Aquaman? He can't tumble at all, ever. Green Arrow? No, he can't tumble either. MArtian manhunter? Black Canary? HAwkman? No, no one of those should have ANY chance to succeed *at all*. We are not talking here that Batman should have better chances. We are talking that Batman suceeds with a 2+, where Green Arrow fails with a 20. Because there's a freaking 20 point difference between the +10 gadget that batman has, and his two feats that gives him another +10. The poor green arrow "only" has max dex, max level, max ranks in the skill as a class skill. So he auto-fails. Read it again: I didn't say "he has a tough time trying" or "his chances are lower". I said "he autofails". And that's Green Arrow. I'm not even going to mention characters that don't have max dex... those have forbiden even to ask about the DC.
Same goes in Pathfinder. We have two characters: one of them is a max dex, max ranks, max level class with acrobatics as class skill. The other one is your proposed character, a max dex, max ranks, max level class with acrobatics plus 2 feats and +10 magic item. The second one can trivially tumble, the first one which is a character supposed to be damn good at it auto-fails.
The difference between a very good dex character and a specialized optimized character at tumbling at level one is +8 vs +13. The things that the optimized character can do, the very good dex character can try to do, even if he has less chances. The optimized will tumble with 2+, the damn good one will tumble with 7+. At high levels, this is no longer true. The difference between the damn very good Max Dex Max Ranks character and the optimized "tumbling if my purpose in life" character is +33 vs +55. That means the guy with max Dex, Max Ranks, Max level and Acrobatic as class skill need to roll a 24 in a d20 to do what the other character can do with 2+.
So yes, if tumbling is the purpose of your character's life, if you are the Batman with +10 gadgets and 2 feats into tumbling, you can tumble. If you don't, you autofail even if you are the freaking Green Arrow.
I removed a post and some replies. Don't be a jerk.
And the character who didn't optimize for tumbling will be better suited to another task that they took feats for or invested their skills into.
Replace tumbling with any other combat maneuver and see if you need to make a similar investment to make it worthwhile. You'll find there's as much investment from any other maneuver as is tumble.
Your examples for the guy who invests less also contain a lack of any magical enhancement. +10 from a 250gp elixir on that 33 puts you to 43 or 2500gp boots for +5. That gives you a 50/50 to get past most CR 20 creatures. Why should someone who's not invested into tumbling be as good as someone who did invest in it.
3E is not pathfinder. The developers created a stream lined system based on some things from previous D&D versions and amalgamated many things. You claim that tumbling wasn't broken in 3E but every other thread I've seen on this topic claims that tumbling was way too easy to perform.
Realize that reducing the difficulty of tumbling completely alters combat. Why engage any front line class if you can just walk past them to the healer/blaster/controller behind them. Its what everyone wants to do to end combats with more ease but those tank classes like to get in the way.
I'd love to GM a campaign for you guys just for the laugh. I'd use tumbling to walk past anyone and kill your healer every combat.
Why is strength part of CMD at all?
Someone is bull rushing you. Your resistance to bull rush if hit is based ultimately on the coefficient of friction between your feet/shoes and the ground and on your weight. Dex and BAB can help you avoid the bull rush, but strength doesn't need to be there. Drag is bull rush in reverse. Both are just about applying force.
Someone is tripping you. There are two defenses: have two much weight on the leg for the trip to work or have no weight on the leg so the trip does nothing. Size helps. Extra legs help. Dexterity helps. Strength shouldn't.
Someone is stealing from you. Dex and BAB help. Size only helps if your wallet becomes too bulky for a smaller person to lift. We can maybe let it slide. Strength in no way should influence the steal combat maneuver at all.
Someone is performing a dirty trick. Let's say they're throwing sand in your face. Dex can help you get your face out of the way. Size might make it harder for the sand to reach your face, though only for tall or huge+ creatures. Strength should be useless.
More maneuvers should ignore strength than use it. Strength really only should apply to disarm, grapple, and maybe reposition. And grapple gets strength involved by grapple breaking using CMB, so it's really just disarm and maybe reposition that need strength as part of CMD.
Everyone also fails to recognize that a CR appropriate encounter with one monster is appropriate to your parties APL. This means that an individual from the party would likely fail to defeat the creature by themselves.
4 players of level 20 have an APL of 20. This means a CR 20 monster is an average challenge for 4 people to defeat. If it takes 4 people to kill it, why would one person have abilities that are superior to the appropriate CR creature that requires a party to kill.
I cant remember offhand the way of figuring a single players CR. Lets start with
less than 4 members, you subtract one from the APL. Since one person is not a party would you subtract another 1 from the APL?
Looking at CR 18 creatures, CMD ranges from 30 to 57 with the majority around 47.
So...
+20 ranks
+3 class
+10 stat
+10 elixir
43 total
You need a 4, 85% success rate to tumble past a CR18. Without the elixir you could spend 2500gp to get boots of elvenkind to have a +38 skill and you'd need a 9, 60% success rate. No investment beyond ranks and you need a 14, 35% success rate.
Add a single feat and you're up to auto succeed against almost every CR18 creature and only need an 8, 65% success rate, vs the hardest CR 18 which happens to be the median for CR 20 creatures.
@Atarlost
Bull rush - think football linemen. They bull rush each other all the time. Strength matters.
Trip - a well developed core strength helps with balance. Strength matters.
Stealing - someone grabs something on your person and you have a tug of war to stop them from taking it. Strength matters until stealing candy from babies.
Dirty trick is the only maneuver I'd give credence to for this but that's just with some examples. You could pull someone's shirt over their head as a dirty trick as hockey players jersey each other. This requires strength to resist. Still I could see dirty trick requiring a different mechanic.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I have no problem with Strength applying to combat maneuvers, all of which involve the attempt to actively do something to the target. Sure, you can argue that dirty trick doesn't have much to do with Strength, but I can accept it in the name of the abstraction: doing something to a target while in combat.
Tumbling is not a combat maneuver (and just using CMD as a DC doesn't make it a combat maneuver). Tumbling does nothing directly to the target (unlike combat maneuvers). Tumbling is the exact opposite of, for example, bull rush, where the intent is to make contact and oppose the target's ability to remain still.
It makes no sense for Strength to apply against tumbling.
Tumbling, instead, is something that is reliant upon someone's skill to stop, much like feinting, and in a similar vein it makes sense for BAB (not strength) to be used in the DC. Quickness can also be a component: thus Dex modifier.
Size likewise makes little sense in opposing tumbling. In fact, a large enough creature's space can even be moved through without tumbling. Arguably, size should provide a penalty to the DC, not a bonus, but ...
... I like the simplicity of 10+BAB+Dex.
It's easy to remember, it's doable (but not guaranteed) for a skilled character, it makes options like "full speed" and "through a space" actually usable, and it encourages mobile combat. (And for those who think rogues are too weak, it gives them a slight boost.)
The fact is, as much as I love PFRPG, skills are one of the weakest areas of the rules, with regard to the changes made from 3.5. (I'm talking about uniformity of utility, not the idea of consolidation, which I think works well.) The idea that Jason somehow found the utility of, say, Climb on par with that of Perception or Stealth or Use Magic Device is a glaring illustration of that weakness ... and tumbling is another.
So, Khrysaor the rogue have to have
+20 ranks
+3 class
+10 stat
+ 5 magic item
for 60% chances of succes against a monster 2 CR behind your level how taht is not bat?
Khrysaor wrote:
Auto succeeding tumble lets you move freely through a battlefield to do whatever you want. It breaks the game
Come on, That just do not happens, and even if it happes it would not brak the game for god sakes. At level 20 moving without provoke hardly break anything.
Beside, the rogue would not go very far using tumble. Even with boots of Striding and Springing the rogue can only move 4 squares, that hardly qualifies as good movility.
now, If he try to do it at full speed he would have only succes 10% of times, 40% with skill focus, 60% with another feat.
And god help him if he try to tumble through an enemy’s space , he ould fail, stop moving and provokes an AoO 65% of times, even with the feats, the dex and the magic item.
finally, the bard, the barbarian, the str based monk, the wisdom based monk, the ranger, the str based rogue/ninja are all screw in this example.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nicos wrote: finally, the bard, the barbarian, the str based monk, the wisdom based monk, the ranger, the str based rogue/ninja are all screw in this example. This is an excellent point that even I overlooked: it's ridiculous enough to say that a skill function is balanced by showing a maxed-out rogue, but it's even more ridiculous when one considers the other classes that should be able to reasonably expect a rank-per-level investment in a skill to allow some success at tumbling.
You obviously can't wrap your head around the concept that your level 20 PC is not on par with a CR 20 monster. Not even close. 1 on 1 you will lose every time.
Let me repeat this so maybe it'll sink in this time. A CR 20 creature is an average challenge for a party of 4 or 5 players that are all level 20. This means it takes 4 to 5 players to kill it with average challenge and expenditure of resources. A single player will not win by themselves, nor should any of your abilities be better than their defenses.
IT REQUIRES A TEAM OF PLAYERS. PATHFINDER IS A TEAM GAME. YOU DO NOT WIN ALONE.
Why does every class have to be good at something because they have it as a class skill. This is logical fallacy. Is a wizard good at every knowledge check and class skill they have? Highly doubtful.
You can't have everything. The game is about flavor and that means you have to pick and choose what you're good at. Every player can't be good at every option. Again you expect too much for little investment.
I also suggested that a level 20 PC would be on par to a CR 18 creature. Meaning your abilities should be about as equal as theirs. A 60% success rate is better than equal. It means you have a 20% advantage over them. 60% success to tumble vs the monsters 40% chance to get an AoO.
You aren't winning this argument because you lack the capacity to quantify any data to validate your claims.
Good luck at life and say hi to Ross Byers for me.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Khrysaor wrote: Why does every class have to be good at something because they have it as a class skill. This is logical fallacy. Is a wizard good at every knowledge check and class skill they have? Highly doubtful. Is a wizard good at every Knowledge skill they have maxed-out? Yeah, pretty likely.
You talk about logical fallacy, but then you compare "having as a class skill" with "having as a maxed-out class skill."
Those aren't the same thing. I'd think that would be obvious.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Khrysaor wrote: Let me repeat this so maybe it'll sink in this time. A CR 20 creature is an average challenge for a party of 4 or 5 players that are all level 20. This means it takes 4 to 5 players to kill it with average challenge and expenditure of resources. A single player will not win by themselves, nor should any of your abilities be better than their defenses.
IT REQUIRES A TEAM OF PLAYERS. PATHFINDER IS A TEAM GAME. YOU DO NOT WIN ALONE.
Wow, succeeding on an acrobatics check to tumble instantly kills CR 20 creatures? I must have missed that in the rules somewhere...
Forgive the sarcasm, but really? I think you're making an oddly large jump for comparison.
Khrysaor wrote: You obviously can't wrap your head around the concept that your level 20 PC is not on par with a CR 20 monster. Not even close. 1 on 1 you will lose every time.
You are so wrong dude.
Maybe a non optimized Pc is not on par with CR 20 monsters, but i think that even a standar 20th level can solo a CR 18 in a lot of cases.
and your example is not a stndar example, is an optimized example, with a lot of resorces devoted to it. A standard non optimized rogue will be crushed with an AoO
Khrysaor wrote:
Let me repeat this so maybe it'll sink in this time. A CR 20 creature is an average challenge for a party of 4 or 5 players that are all level 20. This means it takes 4 to 5 players to kill it with average challenge and expenditure of resources. A single player will not win by themselves, nor should any of your abilities be better than their defenses.
I do not know why you are saying this.
"hey look I tumble the balor I win the Fihgt"
sorry but is not like it happnes like that.
Khrysaor wrote:
Why does every class have to be good at something because they have it as a class skill. This is logical fallacy. Is a wizard good at every knowledge check and class skill they have? Highly doubtful.
No, a wizard is not good at at Knowledge(x) because he have it as class skill, if he spend 20 ranks and have 30 int he will autosucced his check to identify the weakness of CR 18 monsters.. Without magic items, without feats.
I do not want to be a rogue capable to tumbling because I have the skill as class skill. I want to be able to tumble because I spended 20 rank in int and have 30 in dex.
Khrysaor wrote:
You can't have everything. The game is about flavor and that means you have to pick and choose what you're good at. Every player can't be good at every option. Again you expect too much for little investment.
Another answers directed to nobody. I only asked for a reasonable tumbling character, I did not asked for a demigod.
Khrysaor wrote:
A 60% success rate is better than equal. It means you have a 20% advantage over them. 60% success to tumble vs the monsters 40% chance to get an AoO.
Seriously Dude? seriously?
Yet all of the examples given have an equal opportunity if they've maxed their ranks have the boots and a comparable Dex. The strength monk shouldn't have a good tumbling skill. He focused on strength not Dex to compliment his Dex based skills.
Are acrobats in a circus good at acrobatics? Yes.
Is the strong man from the circus good at acrobatics? No. He spent his time being strong. Had he spent his time honing his acrobatics he wouldn't have the strength he has.
One more time, if you don't make the investment, why do you think you should be good at something?
The barbarian is a str based class and wears medium armor. You cannot tumble in medium armor. Why should it excel at tumbling?
Bards can easily be comparable in tumbling to the rogue.
The strength based monk, like the barbarian, invested in a stat that's not conducive to tumbling. Why should it be good at tumbling. The build is obviously designed for something else.
The wisdom based monk just needs to take the trait wisdom in the flesh and you're just as good at tumbling. I'm wondering what this monk actually does since you chose not to invest in a physical stat. You're going to be pretty useless.
Monks can also use a ki point to give them a +20 in acrobatics for a round.
Rangers can wear medium armor and suffers the inability to tumble in it. Rangers can just as easily be as competent at acrobatics.
Strength rogues/ninjas are designed for strength not Dex based skills. ninjas can us ki to gain a +20 acrobatics bonus. A couple rogue talents and rogues can too.
My favorite part of your argument is that Im currently playing a multiclassed strength based ninja/fighter. I wear mithral full plate and have a +31 in acrobatics at level 11. I don't fail any tumble checks. Nor any jump checks to jump over entire battlefields while wearing full plate. As soon as my ninja hits level 10, he'll be capable of jumping 60+ feet straight up while wearing that full plate. Good times.
Enjoy the noob tears. I'm bailing out before I have to swim.
|
