The Alexandrian

One of the nits that seems to get perennially picked in D&D is the Tumble skill. Specifically, the uses of the skill which allow a character to avoid attacks of opportunity: The DC 15 check to avoid attacks for moving through threatened areas and the DC 25 check to tumble right through an opponent’s space.

There are generally understood to be two shortcomings to these rules:

1. The game already makes it relatively difficult to control territory. For example, there is no effective way for a single person to guard a 10′ wide hallway — no matter how skilled they are and unskilled their opponents are. The Tumble skill exacerbates this because now you can’t even control the space you’re standing in: Say the PCs want to prevent someone from reaching the Lever of Doom at the end of a hallway — it doesn’t matter how many demigods you cram into the hallway, a 1st level tumbler can still move past them like water through a sieve.

2. The idea that some skill in tumbling would allow you to dextrously move past a slower and clumsier opponent is not problematic in and of itself. The problem is that the DC for check is flat: It would be fine if the 5th level rogue could tumble past a whole brigade of 1st level warriors, but it shouldn’t be possible for that same rogue to tumble past Cyrano de Bergerac or Benedict of Amber.

Essentially, the Tumble skill needs to somehow take the skill of the person you’re tumbling past into account.

SOLUTIONS

Over the years I have seen several attempted solutions (and attempted many myself). These include:

1. Opposed tumble checks.
2. The tumble check is opposed by a Reflex saving throw.
3. The tumble check replaces your AC.
4. The tumble check is added to your AC.
5. Add your tumble bonus (sans Dex) to your AC (either with or without a flat-DC check).
6. Add the level of the character you’re tumbling past to the DC of the check.
7. Add the BAB of the character you’re tumbling past to the DC of the check.
8. Add the melee attack bonus of the character you’re tumbling past to the DC of the check.
9. The tumble check is opposed by a melee attack roll. (If the target succeeds at the opposed check, a new attack roll is made to resolve the AoO.)
10. A flat-DC check grants you a flat +4 dodge bonus to AC. (The Mobility feat either makes the check unnecessary or stacks.)

PROBLEMS

None of these are entirely satisfactory, in my opinion. The reasons include:

1. Tumbling is not a required skill for being a highly-skilled swordsman. Not only doesn’t it make sense for my ability to hit your with a sword to be dependent on my ability to (literally) jump through hoops, it also doesn’t solve the inherent imbalance you’re trying to correct: The tumbler will still be able to tumble past the finest swordsmen in the world (since it’s unlikely they’ve taken ranks in Tumble).

2. This mitigates the problem better than an opposed Tumble check (since Reflex saves improve automatically). And although Reflex saves still aren’t tied to melee prowess, the conceptual match is slightly better: It makes sense that quick reflexes would allow you to react quicker to a tumbler. But this solution doesn’t actually fix the game balance issues: Saving throws simply don’t advance as quickly as skill ranks do. The tumblers still outstrip the abilities of the fighters, it just takes them slightly longer to do it.

3. Tumbling should never make you easier to hit than if you just casually strolled by the person you’re attacking. It is relatively trivial to come up with situations where replacing your AC with your Tumble check would result in precisely that.

4. One interesting facet of the 3rd Edition rules is that a character’s AC is, essentially, a special case of the central resolution mechanic in which you take 10 and then add your various bonuses. (In fact, many variants exist where you roll a d20 instead of effectively taking 10 to determine your AC against any particular attack.) But when you think of AC in this way, the problem with this solution immediately becomes apparent: In addition to your own tumbling skill, you’re also adding a second d20 roll to your total. This is obviously not balanced.

5. But simply adding your Tumble bonus doesn’t work, either. It eliminates that second d20 roll, but you’re still faced with the fact that this would become a huge bonus. Consider the fact that the game is obviously balanced so that two characters of the same level both have at least a decent opportunity to hit each other. Tacking on a +20 bonus to AC obviously throws that out of whack. If that doesn’t convince you, simply consider the fact that a magic item conferring a +10 bonus to Tumble costs roughly the same as a +3 bonus to AC.

6. Adding the level of the character you’re tumbling past to the DC of the check at least takes some measure of the skill of the opponent you’re facing. But level is only proximate to combat, and the system begins suffering some real problems when you try to use it with monsters (many of which have HD higher than their CR).

7. Adding the BAB, on the other hand, is a much better solution. I would recommend lowering the base DCs slightly to compensate in the tumbler’s favor here (so the checks would DC 10 + BAB and DC 20 + BAB). The only problem with this is that BAB, while a better proximate of combat prowess than level, is still only proximate: There are many, many things which improve your ability to make an attack. But this is definitely a workable solution.

8. Adding the full melee attack bonus, on the other hand, doesn’t work. The problem simply becomes that the resulting DCs end up being far too high to be reasonable for a character of the same level. You can mitigate this somewhat by stripping away most or all of the base DC of the check (so the DCs become equal to the melee attack bonus and the melee attack bonus + 10 for the two checks), but this only mitigates the problem. And, at low levels, it results in check DCs which are too low.

9. This is the solution proposed by Monte Cook in Arcana Evolved and then later picked up by Mike Mearls in Iron Heroes. Cook makes the basic “avoid AoO” a straight opposed check, while effectively giving the tumbler a -5 penalty on a check to tumble through someone’s space. Cook and Mearls are both savvy game designers and, as one might expect, this is probably the best solution we’ve looked at so far: It turns out that attack bonuses and the skill bonus of a specialist tend to stay within reasonable distance of each other at any given level. And by making the check a gatekeeper for the actual resolution of the AoO (the check doesn’t determine whether the AoO succeeds or not, it determines whether the AoO can be attempted), Cook makes sure that tumbling never makes it more likely for the tumbler to be hit.

The only criticism of this method is that it essentially doubles the amount of time it takes to resolve the action. This is not necessarily the end of the world, but whenever you add a die roll to the game you’re slowing it down. Slow it down enough and it’s no longer fun to play.

10. This is a fairly elegant solution, but suffers from two shortcomings. First, it fails to address the “move through their space” element. Second, the lack of scaling with skill has simply been moved from the person being tumbled past to the person doing the tumbling: No matter how skilled you are at tumbling, you still get nothing more than that flat +4 bonus to AC. Tying the size of the AC bonus to the result of the Tumble check can solve the second problem, but only clumsily or through the use of a chart look-up (neither of which, in my opinion, are desirable).

DESIGN GOALS

So, taking all of that into consideration, is there a solution which works? For me, a successful rule would need:

1. To take into account the skill of both the tumbler and the person being tumbled past. Highly skilled swordsmen should be tougher to tumble past than neophyte warriors; highly skilled tumblers should be better at tumbling past people than amateur acrobats.

2. Never result in the tumbler being easier to hit than if they hadn’t tumbled.

3. Be simple to use and easy to remember. And, to that end, consistent with other skill checks. (In general, if three or four different tasks use the same mechanic, it’s easier than if those tasks each use different mechanics.)

4. Minimize the number of rolls needed to resolve the action.

THE SOLUTION

I’m going to make the rather radical suggestion that part of the problem in trying to solve this problem is that there are actually multiple actions trying to be resolved simultaneously. In reality, there are three things these Tumble checks are attempting to handle:

1. The ability to move around the battlefield quickly and nimbly (minimizing the risk posed from people taking shots at you as you run by them).

2. The ability to dextrously move through someone’s space.

3. The ability to nimbly avoid a specific attack aimed at you.

I’m going to sugggest that the solution is to split these different actions up and resolve them independently of each other.

TUMBLING MOVE: By making a Tumble check (DC 15) you gain a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area. You can move up to half your speed without penalty. You can move at your speed by accepting a -10 penalty to this check and you can run by accepting a -20 penalty to this check.

TUMBLE PAST: You can attempt to tumble through an opponent’s space as part of normal movement. Because you are entering an opponent’s space, this provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You must make a Tumble check (DC 25). If the attack of opportunity is successful or the Tumble check fails, you move back 5 feet in the direction you came, ending your movement there. Otherwise, you move through the opponent’s space and can continue your move normally.

AVOID ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY: When you are hit as a result of an attack of opportunity you provoked, you may use an attack of opportunity or swift action to attempt a Tumble check to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Tumble check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll. (Essentially, the Tumble check becomes your Armor Class if it is higher than your regular AC.)

DESIGN NOTES

This solution keeps most resolutions to a simple skill check vs. a flat DC (the easiest of all possible skill checks), but it never negates the opponent’s ability to interfere with the tumble. In one key regard it borrows Cook’s solution of opposing the Tumble check with an attack roll, but by borrowing from the Mounted Combat feat mechanic of negating a hit it simplifies Cook’s solution: Instead of two separate resolutions, there is essentially only one resolution point (nobody is ever asked to roll more than a single check to resolve the action).

We’ve also made a successful use of this ability more useful, because it actually uses up the opponent’s attack of opportunity. As a result, the character must burn a limited resource (either an attack of opportunity or a swift action) in order to perform the attempt. Any character with basic training in tumbling can attempt to dodge their way nimbly through combat (by making a flat DC check to receive a bonus to AC), but if a character wants to be able to really dance through a mob of opponents, they should pick up the Combat Reflexes feat.

Those flat DCs also hide another useful design feature: Eventually the tumbler won’t have to actually make those checks. At that point, the only check which becomes important is the opposed check to negate the hit. This further speeds up gameplay while satisfying our design goals.

4 Responses to “Thoughts on Tumbling – Revised”

  1. Justin Alexander says:

    ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS

    Scow2
    How about not melee attack, but oppose Tumble with Base Attack Bonus+Weapon Focus? Thus, the high-strength clods (Such as Ogres) are at the mercy of a tumbler, but a Highly-Skilled swordsman isn’t. In order to reliably out-tumble foes of similar level to you does require maxing the tumble skill, but even a few points can let you tumble through low-level mooks.
    Friday, August 20, 2010, 3:45:04 PM


    Muninn
    In that case, I’d make it BAB + WeaponFocus + DEX bonus.

    maybe add the bonus from the weapon itself
    Friday, August 20, 2010, 4:46:55 PM


    Dragatus
    @ Altair

    I don’t see how rolling tumble vs melee attack to negate an AoO is stronger than rolling vs a static DC of 15.
    Sunday, December 06, 2009, 6:29:23 AM


    Noumenon
    The first encounter I tried this in was against a non-CR-appropriate opponent: the Ogre Brb 6 in the MM against a reduce-personed level 4 rogue. I actually used house rule #8 but the point is that I don’t think I want Tumble to be tougher against the “Cyrano de Bergeracs,” because those are the ones who are going to kill my rogues with one AoO. So I gave up on this after one encounter.
    Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 2:18:00 AM


    Altair
    Your proposal that Tumbling skill could be used to negate hits seems over-powered and outside the normal application of the rules.
    Being able to avoid hits is what one’s AC is all about. Yes, your proposal scales with level – the Tumble check will be harder against better opponents – but it means that you’ll find everyone maxing out their Tumbling skills.
    Other than that, I like the treatment.
    Sunday, December 02, 2007, 2:58:45 PM


    Justin Alexander
    The problem with the readied action solution, as you note, is that it falls apart once you’ve got more than one person trying to get past you.

    The problem I have with the feat solution is that it then becomes a battle of one-upsmanship: I’ve got a feat that negates your AoO. You get a feat that lets you ignore my feat that negates your AoO. So then I get a feat that lets me ignore your feat that lets you ignore my feat that negates… And so on.

    Plus, I’m generally skeptical of feats that let someone do something that anyone should be able to attempt. I think that anyone should be able to use their martial prowess to try to guard a narrow bridge (for example).

    One of the problems 3rd Edition definitely has is that it has a tendency to require mastery at higher levels in order to pre-emptively defend yourself. By which I mean you need to know what threats are coming so that you can cover the Achilles’ heels that begin to develop. This problem with Tumble is not as severe some of the “if you don’t do it, your character will die very quickly at the hands of a vorpal sword” examples, but it lies within the same problem area.

    But I definitely see where you’re coming from.
    Saturday, September 22, 2007, 3:12:37 AM


    Cody
    Justin,

    I’ve been considering your first proposition, that there is no effective way for a single person to guard a 10′ hallway. After some rumination, I disagree. The defender has one excellent option against a single tumbler: the readied action.

    With a readied action, it doesn’t matter if the tumbler makes his tumble roll: the defender is still capable of making his attack/trip/grapple/bull rush against him. Thus, the defender’s abilities (BAB, strength, feats, and possibly dexterity) are quite involved in the outcome. Although not spelled out in the rules, it would be appropriate to allow an opposed tumble check to block the tumbler.

    I see the “moving through…” application of the tumble skill as a way to determine whether the tumbler can move past / avoid contact with a target who is not focused on stopping him. If the target is focused, then he should be using a standard action to oppose the tumbling, which would manifest as an attack of some sort. So, in this case, I see the rules as sufficiently taking into consideration the tumbler’s ability and the defender’s ability.

    Now, if we are discussing a situation with one defender against multiple tumblers, as written, the defender has an attack against a single tumbler and an AoO against a tumbler who fails his check. I feel that it would be in line for a high level character to have a chance to oppose each tumbler, but only if he is trained to do so. I would lean towards a feat that disallows the automatic negation of AoOs, thus allowing a high dex defender with combat reflexes an opportunity to oppose most, if not all, tumblers in some fashion.

    -Cody

    * * * * *
    Sunday, August 26, 2007, 1:26:11 PM

  2. Cr0m says:

    Can you unpack your thinking behind not wanting a Tumble check to make it easier for you to be hit than if you hadn’t tumbled?

    To me, it seems reasonable that trying to dodge past an enemy with a weapon is a risky move, and might open you up to being hit in a way that staying in a defensive stance would not. That’s why tumbling is for the skilled, right?

  3. Justin Alexander says:

    @Cr0m: As a general principle, I don’t feel that being skilled at something should make you mechanically more incompetent at it. You run into this same problem with some pre-3E thief skills, where a 1st level thief is less competent at those skills than any other 1st level character.

    The difference here is not between “staying where you are in a defensive stance” vs. “moving past someone who’s trying to hit you”. It’s “moving past someone trying to hit you without being skilled at avoiding them” vs. “moving past someone trying to hit you while being skilled at avoiding them” and for some reason the skilled character can end being easier to hit than the unskilled character.

  4. cr0m says:

    I see your point.

Leave a Reply

Archives

Recent Posts


Recent Comments

Copyright © The Alexandrian. All rights reserved.