The Gaming Den

RC wrote:
Game balance is a good reason. That's the same thinking the designers made when they created the animates shield, and allowed clerics to fight better than fighters.

No, your thinking is the thinking that keeps the fighter types on a different, weaker level of power from the casters.

"Oh, we should have Pointless Restriction X in place for full plate Melee Guys, because it will help balance them against Reach Melee Guys."

You favor arbitrary and nonsensical rules that solely govern melee classes, and you favor creating them in the vacuum of melee classes.

-----------------------

At any rate, you favor an...odd restriction because it benefits a distinct minority of melee guys. Not the best reason to create an odd restriction.

-----------------------

Furthermore, you favor an odd restriction for no real reason. As I've said before (and you've repeatedly failed to answer), It's. Still. Cross. Class. Be honest, here, you're games aren't currently sorta full of tumblers, right?

Ok, cool. Well, they're not going to go to extremely full if we just remove that dumb restriction. As others have pointed in, in real D&D, if you're willing to blow a lot of cross-class skill points so that you can occasionally avoid AoOs, go for it. The game's about choices. If that's what you wnat to choose to do, so be it.

-----------------------

You have failed to present a logical reason why tumbling in heavy armor shouldn't just call for an Armor Check penalty.

Take, for example, a Fighter in Full Plate trying to tumble. We'll give this fighter a dex of 12, since more would be wasted, AC wise. We'll just assume he's going two-handed sword for now.

This fighter would need a final Tumble bonus of +14 in order to auto-tumble.

Now, to determine how close the fighter gets without any ranks of tumble, we'll simply start with 1 (for the dex), and subtract 6 for the Armor Check penalty. That means that our fighter, sans Tumble ranks, starts with a -5 Tumble check.

That means that our fighter needs 19 ranks in Tumble in order to auto-tumble, and always avoid those AoOs you go on and on about. 19 ranks. For a cross-class skill.

Damn.

That even means that, if through some coolness, you can get Tumble as a class skill, you will still need 19 ranks to tumble in Full Plate.

You can even play with those numbers a bit. Let's say for some reason, you have a +4 dex mod (and still decide you need to wear Full Plate). Fine. You still need 16 ranks to Tumble about. That means that you must be a 13th level character, minimum, to auto-tumble and make those poor Reach Melee Guys cry.

-----------------------

As I said before, RC, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1110646503[/unixtime]]
Furthermore, you favor an odd restriction for no real reason. As I've said before (and you've repeatedly failed to answer), It's. Still. Cross. Class. Be honest, here, you're games aren't currently sorta full of tumblers, right?

Anyone in light armor who melees has tumble in my games. Every single one. And yes, one of them took it cross class.

If you're a rogue you get it as a class skill, if you're a fighter, you've got nothing better to spend it on anyway.

No, your thinking is the thinking that keeps the fighter types on a different, weaker level of power from the casters.

"Oh, we should have Pointless Restriction X in place for full plate Melee Guys, because it will help balance them against Reach Melee Guys."

Yeah, it's kinda like... oh I don't know... arcane spell failure?

Ok, cool. Well, they're not going to go to extremely full if we just remove that dumb restriction. As others have pointed in, in real D&D, if you're willing to blow a lot of cross-class skill points so that you can occasionally avoid AoOs, go for it. The game's about choices. If that's what you wnat to choose to do, so be it.

But there's not much of a choice when you consider the fighter list. What else are you going to take?

Spot/Listen- you'll never keep up crossclass versus a rogue, pointless.
Social skills- You'll suck as a part face no matter what
Knowledges- Maybe, but you might as well let someone with decent int, like the wizard handle this.
Tumble - DC 15, helps you in combat.
Jump/Climb- Fly is a 3rd level spell.

Where is the choice? Seriously.

You have failed to present a logical reason why tumbling in heavy armor shouldn't just call for an Armor Check penalty.

I don't want people in heavy armor tumbling at all. That's my reason. I want monks and rogues being the tumblers.

Why? +10 skill items, +20 skill items, 1 level dips to rogue. There are tons of ways to not deal with that check penalty when you're doing DC 15 checks.

This fighter would need a final Tumble bonus of +14 in order to auto-tumble.

So what? You don't need to autotumble, that's the point. You don't lose anything by failing a tumble check. So even if ti doesn't work all the time, so what?

That means that our fighter needs 19 ranks in Tumble in order to auto-tumble, and always avoid those AoOs you go on and on about. 19 ranks. For a cross-class skill.

+10 skil items go a long way, as does mithral armor. We know there are tons of little ways to get a fighter super tumbling. Hell, even just a 1 level dip into rogue, or the one feat that lets you get another cross class skill as a class skill.

And you don't even need to succeed all the time, that's the thing.

If you're going to close wiht a troll with reach with your greatsword, you migth as well tumble. You lose nothing by doing it. Even if you succeed only 10% of the time, that's still 10% less AoOs.

As I said before, RC, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

And you aren't?

If the problem is so minor and people in medium and heavy armor don't tumble anywya without super difficulty, why do you care if the limitation is absolute? If the armor check penalty was enough to control it, then you wouldn't care if it got changed or not.

And you accuse me of being illogical.

You are the one arguing in one breath that the change wouldn't do anything but at the same time continuing to argue that it should be done. If it's meaningless then why should do you care?

Sounds to me like both of you are trying to fix the symptoms, not the problem. The problem with tumble is fixed DCs, skill items and the ever fun fighter class list.

Rename tumble into mobility, turn the "do not take AoOs from movement" DC into something like 5 + opponent's mobility skill check, slap on normal AC penalties, done. Oh, and remove skill items (or at the very least make them more expensive).

The skill system is basically so screwed up I'm not sure it's even possble to fix it for combat applications without tossing the whole thing.

Generally I just try to avoid the skill system when it comes to anything important.

Basically what needs to be done is that everytihng needs to be on the same scale. So you can for instance oppose a tumble check with a DC of 11 + reflex save, and similar stuff. But right now, everything is on its own little scale, which makes skills the only thing that can counter skills. That's really problematic, because not everyone has any given skill. Meaning they could potentially have a defense of 0.

Realyl I'd just like to see tumble tossed as a skill entirely and it just becomes a monk or rogue class ability that lets them avoid AoOs from moving in occuptied spaces while in light or no armor. At another higher level they could get improved tumble that let them do ti at full speeds. You really don't need a "tumble check" at all.

Why should thieves be better at not getting smacked around then fighters?

Murtak at [unixtime wrote:1110657534[/unixtime]]
Why should thieves be better at not getting smacked around then fighters?

They're not. Fighters with heavy armor have better AC, rogues are just more mobile, and that makes perfect sense.

And what about a fighter in light armor?

Murtak at [unixtime wrote:1110657955[/unixtime]]And what about a fighter in light armor?

Add it to the swashbuckler core class or the duelist PrC.

Let me recap:
You want people in light armor to be able to never take AoOs (from movement), but only if they took x levels in certain classes. You do not want anyone in heavy armor to tumble, no matter what class they are. You also do not want fighters to tumble, even if they run around naked. Oh, and you do not want the tumble skill to exist because it is all or nothing - which is why you like rogues/monks not taking AoOs at all.

I'd also just like to see some of these +10 or +20 or whatever Tumble items I'd like to hear about.

I'm not saying they aren't out there, but I'd like to know what, exactly, it is that you're talking about, RC.

I see the logic of allowing a tumble check in heavy armor, complete with the armor check penalty. Perhaps, to balance out the power of the Tumble skill, you could set the DC vs. the attacker’s to hit roll. Then, tumbling past an average Monter Manual kobold would require a Tumble check of anywhere between 1 and 20, while trying to tumble past Conan the Barbarian would be somewhere between 30 and 50.

The Mobility feat would help if your AC is higher than your Tumble roll.

You could also restrict the tumble skill to a number of uses per round. Say 1 use per 5 ranks. Or just one time per round.

mongo

Oops! That was me. Forgot to login.

mongo

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1110664363[/unixtime]]I see the logic of allowing a tumble check in heavy armor, complete with the armor check penalty. Perhaps, to balance out the power of the Tumble skill, you could set the DC vs. the attacker’s to hit roll. Then, tumbling past an average Monter Manual kobold would require a Tumble check of anywhere between 1 and 20, while trying to tumble past Conan the Barbarian would be somewhere between 30 and 50.

The Mobility feat would help if your AC is higher than your Tumble roll.

You could easily do that. If you make the DC dynamic instead of static, then you can remove the armor restriction and just use an armor check penalty, and that'd be ok.

Basically here you'd be saying "when you move through threatened areas, your tumble check can replace your AC against AoOs."

Which would work pretty well, though it would weaken the tumble skill somewhat.

Yeah, but the tumble skill could use some weakening. I think the tumble check=AC bit works pretty well.

I don't know that tumbling should be expressly forbidden in heavy armor, but it should be pretty tough. Using that as an alternate rule, it would be pretty tough, because you not only have to tumble well, you have to beat your own AC for it to be meaningful.

Murtak, what is with you and these straw man arguments? In every thread I've seen you reply to recently, you try to take a reasonable set of statements and turn it into something ridiculous sounding -- which is admittedly a staple of internet arguing, and especially around here, but that doesn't really make it a good thing.

It might just be me, but the combination of "skills end up being all or nothing. that is bad" and "we should replace tumble with an all or nothing ability" seemed somewhat ridiculous to me.

The "replace AC with tumble result" approach sounds pretty decent to me. About the only downside I can see is more rolls (since people will always attack, hoping for a natural 20). Of course my proposal has the same amount of extra rolls.

Now, how good does tumbling work in that scenario? Assuming maxed out ranks and no armor penalty (no maxdex either):
- AC starts at 10, Tumble at a d20
- Both AC and Tumble add Dex, so that is a non-factor.
- Tumble gets a rank per level (+3)
- You can at least assume a +4 armor bonus (mithral chain shirt).
- AC gets enhancement bonuses, deflection and whatnot.

Conclusion: On a rogue or monk you can assume that tumble checks and armor will slowly drift apart (tumble being better). A shield would probably balance them out again, or even make armor work better. Of course if you use +skill items the difference will be rather large. I don't like the idea of investing into a skill that does to nothing myself. So adding 5 or 10 to the tumble check might make it work out better.

Quick demonstration:
Level 5 rogue, mithral chain shirt +1, 20 dex, 8 ranks tumble
AC: 10+5+5 = 20
Tumble: 8+5+d20 = 23.5

Note that the rogue could get to 22 AC just by using a shield. If he is willing to have 1.5 less AC for AoOs from moving he gets to save 8 skill points.

For some sort of medium armor fighter to use tumble remotely effectively it would probably have to be +10.
Level 5 fighter, breastplate +1, 16 dex, 8 ranks tumble
AC: 10+6+3 = 19
Tumble: 8+3-3+d20 = 18.5 (14.5 if you assume tumble is a cross class skill)

See, if you are goign to go the route of "Tumble is AC" - then it sure as hell shouldn't even have an armor check penalty attached.

Armor in Dungeons and Dragons is represented by you being harder to hit. If wearing armor makes you easier to hit, then the entire world is topsy turvy and dogs will lie down with cats. Utter madness.

If we had some sort of system in which armor made you take less damage, then sure, you could produce some sort of system by which people land more blows on you while you are wearing heavier armor. But that's not the system we are working with! Armor reduces damage over time by making attacks inflict wounds on you less often (a nod to the old wargames like Warhammer and Chainmail), and not by reducing damage from a successful hit. And in that system, you can't allow armor to increase the chances that people will hit you.

Not ever. Not once.

It could be something like "If you have tumble, you add +2 to your AC when attacked with an AoO." or whatever. But having an AC which is under any circumstances replaced by a skill check that is reduced by armor - that's just dumb.

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1110766908[/unixtime]]
It could be something like "If you have tumble, you add +2 to your AC when attacked with an AoO." or whatever. But having an AC which is under any circumstances replaced by a skill check that is reduced by armor - that's just dumb.

Why? At this point you're just using your natural tumbling ability instead of armor. And it isn't like you always replace your AC with your tumble check, you'd do so only if your tumble check was greater than your AC.

As far as tumbling goes though, you should be worse at it if you try in heavy armor. That actually makes sense. And while the heavy armored guy might get hit less normally, he certainly isn't going to get hit any less while on the move, and shouldn't get any advantage for tumbling.

For me that seems perfectly logical.

What is it with wanting guys in full plate to tumble anyway? I dont' get it.

RC wrote:At this point you're just using your natural tumbling ability instead of armor.

That's retarded. There can't be any "instead". You're still wearing the damned armor! The fact that a sword blow has to go through a piece of leather or steel before it gets to your vital organs is represented by the reduction in total hits you receive over time. If wearing armor makes it more likely that an opponent will score a hit upon you, that means that you are saying that the extra layer of steel makes dagger blows against your person more damaging.

Remember, the original rules didn't have hit points at all - you were just less likely to die from an attack if you wore armor. And throughout the years, armor's mechanic has stayed the same even though you now have DR and hit points and weapon damage and shit in the rest of the system.

Armor makes you get hit less. Not more. Less. That's how the system models the fact that hits against you are less damaging when you have padding - by having a certain amount of hits get converted into "misses" rather than by reducing the damage of each hit along the way.

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1110999593[/unixtime]]

That's retarded. There can't be any "instead". You're still wearing the damned armor! The fact that a sword blow has to go through a piece of leather or steel before it gets to your vital organs is represented by the reduction in total hits you receive over time. If wearing armor makes it more likely that an opponent will score a hit upon you, that means that you are saying that the extra layer of steel makes dagger blows against your person more damaging.

Well right, you are still wearing the armor, which is why your base AC can't be lowered by tumbling. You only replace your AC with the tumbling result if the tumbling result is higher, that is, if the tumbling result actually did any good. When you're wearing heavy armor, the tumbling result probably isn't going to be doing you much good, and that makes sense. I mean some guy trying to do cartwheels and forward rolls in full plate is most often just going to make an ass of himself.

Realistically you couldn't do that shit at all, knights had trouble even getting up when they fell while wearing all that armor. But in a fantasy game you can allow this sort of thing, but still it shouldn't be a very effective tactic.

Armor makes you get hit less. Not more. Less. That's how the system models the fact that hits against you are less damaging when you have padding - by having a certain amount of hits get converted into "misses" rather than by reducing the damage of each hit along the way.

Right. I realize that, but the question here is how much tumbling should improve your AC. When you're wearing heavy armor, the answer should be "not a heck of a lot."

Remember, you lose nothing by tumbling. The worst that happens is you use your base AC.

How about just add a dodge bonus to armor class versus AOOs based on the tumble check? Like +1 for every 4 above 10, or something like that.

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1111001817[/unixtime]]How about just add a dodge bonus to armor class versus AOOs based on the tumble check? Like +1 for every 4 above 10, or something like that.

Well the danger there might be making tumbling too good for heavy armor characters. And honestly that's what I'm more worried about. I really don't care if tumbling sucks ass for people in heavy armor, it should. But I want the monk and rogue to be able to tumble and get something useful from it.

The thing with adding a fixed bonus is that the armor check penalty is only like a -8 or so. So using your formula, that's 2 points of AC, which seems ok, only heavy armor is actually giving you more than 2 points over the lightly armored guy. not to mention when you pick up mithril armor things get worse. So in this case, the best tumblers would be the guys wearing heavy armor, and I think that's what you'd want to avoid at all costs.

Really, as much as everyone hates it for some reason, I think the current implementation, though very binary, does its job as it should.

RC wrote:only heavy armor is actually giving you more than 2 points over the lightly armored guy.

...so yor complaint is that when people get the ability to wear heavy armor and then invest resources into acquiring some, and then take the time to put it on every day, and suffer the drawbacks to their stealth and (sometimes) speed, that they actually get a benefit in the form of being harder to kill? Holy shit! Stop the presses right now, we can't have Fighters actually benefitting from their abilities!

Seriously though, what the fvcking fvck? Armor Proficiency is an ability that you pay not having shapechange and timestop for. It had better be fvcking fantastic. It should wash your car without being told to.

Everytime somebody suggests that Heavy Armor shouldn't stack with additional defensive investment, they are sticking a razor cock up the ass of fighters for no damned reason at all. A Fighter who invests in Tumble and heavy armor is not just as defensively invested as a Rogue, and he damned well shouldn't be any easier to kill in melee! The Fighter has invested in two defensive powers: Heavy Armor And Tumble - so that had sure as hell be better than just investing in one because it fvcking costs more!

Are we speaking the same language here? Heavy Armor shouldn't be a disadvantage to have ever, because it's an ability that's really expensive in the long run (except, obviously, for Clerics. And they are a whole different set of dilemmas). You can have it not do anything from time to time (like when you make attack rolls, for example), but you sure as shit can't make it a disadvantage to have.

What you are arguing for is for Warrior characters to have to pay multicaster penalties if they want to do more than one thing. That's bullshit for Fighter Wizards and it's bullshit for Fighter Tumblers as well. Being a Fighter shouldn't make you start over from square one every time you add an additional schtick to your character.

-Username17

What's the big deal? Seriously. We have arcane spell failure that punishes wizards from wearing armor, monks lose various bonuses from wearing armor, why is it all that big a deal to say you can't tumble in heavy armor. Who does it really hurt?

And if you allow it to be a benefit, then what's next? Monks doing flying kicks in full plate? Sometimes it's important to try to keep some basic archetypes intact. It also emphasizes various fighting styles.

Light armor = mobility.
Heavy armor = protection

And that's a good thing. I have absolutely no problem with saying heavy armor characters can't tumble, or if they do, suck at it. That's the way it should be. I don't want full plate acrobats in my game.

... I mean some guy trying to do cartwheels and forward rolls in full plate is most often just going to make an ass of himself.

A google search on cartwheels+full+platemail

There's plenty of links there saying that yes, you can do a cartwheel in full platemail.

So, are you advocating having the game be less realistic in such a way that it screws over the heavy plate mail-wearing fighters?

RC wrote:
Light armor = mobility.
Heavy armor = protection

That would be fine, but you are suggesting a rule in which Light Armor is providing mobility and protection, and Heavy Armor isn't doing a damned thing. Since Heavy Armor costs more than Light Armor, both in terms of money and character abilities, that's completely unacceptable.

-Username17