Talk:Tome of Prowess (3.5e Sourcebook)/Acrobatics

What the...
How is it easier to cross a narrow surface while running?!? I'm sorry, but this new version of the skill is utterly stupid. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is wrong. Some questions to elucidate things: Can you balance on a moving bicycle? How about a motionless one? Which can you balance on for longer? The answers likely match the new version of the skill (unless you're really backwards talented).


 * In the old version, it was easier to stand motionless on a tightrope than it was to walk across it. Which is pretty much the opposite of how it actually works. So flipping this better matches actual uses of balance and also stops it from being exactly the opposite progression from all of the expansion abilities. And I pulled out the "clinging to a cliff face thing, which isn't represented here at all anymore because that one is actually better modeled by moving slowly. That said, it maybe needs an initial half speed thing and maybe a death spiral thing where repeated uses get harder as your balance starts to go. It's a refresh pass, and it's not finished yet. - Tarkisflux Talk 02:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, your analogy isn't quite on the mark. Moving bicycles stay upright because of gyroscopic forces. Those are not a factor in a running human. It may or may not be a valid point that walking on a tightrope is easier than standing on one (that's certainly not true of a balance beam, but maybe a narrower item works differently). But running on a tightrope is absolutely not going to be easier than walking. --DanielDraco (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, and I knew that when I wrote it. I was trying to capture the idea that inertia is a thing you can use to get across a narrow surface before you need to worry about balance so much (in the bike case, before the stabilizing effects come up), but in retrospect that's not really what the mechanics are supporting here. Because while it is easier to start running across something and let that carry you across, it doesn't work on the second round. So the current focus on the inertia over the balance isn't going to work methinks. I'll keep tinkering with it, possibly reverting it to the original, applying to all of the expansion abilities, and adding a starting momentum thing in place of the weird minor failure state. I'm willing to accept a bit of weirdness in exchange for a standardized mechanic for the ability and all of its descendents, but not this one it seems. - Tarkisflux Talk 04:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Newton vs. Gygax, fight! --DanielDraco (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Ability Format
As part of my recent editing, I have realized that tracking all of this stuff on the design side is really annoying once the mechanics start to fall into line. So I'm toying with an alternate format for the abilities. It's spoilered below, because big.

I think it's a lot easier to see the progressions and do lookups in this format. And I think I prefer the flow here. It's probably slightly easier to miss a new thing when levelling up a character though. Anyway, this is largely a preference thing, so I'm shopping opinions. Do you have a preference? Group ability upgrades by ability, or by ranks when they come online?

[Edit] Parts of that are pretty dry, and I'd likely fluff/chewy it up a bit. Particularly the upgrade section. This is mostly for illustrative purposes at this point. - Tarkisflux Talk 07:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I like this format over the prior format. It'd look even cooler though, if you made the rank upgrades were in a table. like as follows:


 * It'd be nice if the numbers were center, but vertical alignment is tough. --Havvy (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Stripes are nice and all, but they aren't as good looking when the rows are all sorts of random lengths, which they are likely to be with many of the other skill abilities. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The vertical alignment is an artifact of the d20 class, and I don't know how to work around it effectively (without resorting to writing a new class). The size consistency can be handled with some style lines and a width call, as my changes above show. Dunno how I feel about tabling it up in general though. - Tarkisflux Talk 05:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)