Jump rules for large and huge characters?

[Hirax]

So I was reading battle jump while re reading this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196559), and it says you need to get 5 feet over the enemy for it to work, meaning you need to be 10~ feet high for medium characters, or 15~ feet high for large characters. It got me thinking that how the SRD handles jump checks doesn't make sense for non-medium characters, since jumping 5 feet off the ground is much more difficult for a medium character than for a huge character. Are there official rules for this somewhere?

[Greenish]

since jumping 5 feet off the ground is much more difficult for a medium character than for a huge character.Square cube law suggests that that may well be untrue.

[Curmudgeon]

Those are the rules, though. You've got to clear the actual height of a character, not rounded to the nearest 5'. So with a 6' tall Human opponent you've got to make it to 11' (DC 44 running Jump check) to have that 5' clearance. For a lightfoot Halfling foe you only need to make it to 8' above the ground (DC 32 running Jump check).

[Hirax]

Those are the rules, though. You've got to clear the actual height of a character, not rounded to the nearest 5'. So with a 6' tall Human opponent you've got to make it to 11' (DC 44 running Jump check) to have that 5' clearance. For a lightfoot Halfling foe you only need to make it to 8' above the ground (DC 32 running Jump check).

That's not my issue. I'm having trouble conceiving that a both a small and huge character need a jump check of 20 to jump 5' in the air. Greenish's post is intriguing, but I'm having a hard time reconciling RL biology with D&D biology in general.

[KillianHawkeye]

Have you taken into account the great Strength and increased move speed that most larger creatures have? Not to mention the possibility of ranks since big monsters have a lot of Hit Dice? A Storm Giant has a +24 Jump modifier, so I don't think it'll have as much trouble making those DCs as an average member of a humanoid race.

[ffone]

This is trivially easy to explain by double-checking the implicit assumptions the OP made; that medium and larger creatures are alike except for their size.

Yes, the square-cube law makes it harder to jump if you scale your body up. But Hill Giants are not just big humans; even the Enlarge Person spell, or size-increasing advances in monster Hit Dice, may deal with this biologically. The fact that just changing the Size of a monster entry doesn't change its jump abilities isn't problematic, because there is no way to actually make that change in-character. Every size-changing effect may come with implicit effects that lead to the stated 'stat block' results.

A Medium and Huge character with a Strength score of X need not have exactly the same muscular capabilities. In fact, the encumberence rules dictate this: your small-s 'strength' is a function of your Strength score, your size, and biped/quadraped build. A character's Strength score is apparently strength in excess of what it needs just to lift its own body. This seems consistent with the lack of a penalty for jump checks.

[Hirax]

Huh, ok, that's making sense now. I learn more about physics from playing D&D than I did in school. :smallbiggrin: Of course, since I double majored in politics and philosophy, that probably isn't saying much.

[ffone]

Huh, ok, that's making sense now. I learn more about physics from playing D&D than I did in school. :smallbiggrin: Of course, since I double majored in politics and philosophy, that probably isn't saying much.

One thing that I find fun, that my group often does-

Most DnDers like to find 'holes' in the rules and complain about them (square-cube law and size has come up a few times.) I tend to enjoy taking the other side, and explain why things *can* make sense. Often If ind people have made their own tacit assumptuons beyond those actually stated in the rules.

For example, "Evasion makes no sense, how can you dodge a solid sphere of fire without moving outside the area?"

My answer is "where dos it say Fireball is a perfect sphere? Maybe it's a bunch of ragged flame tongues, and has transient little gaps which move over the milliseconds the spell is exploding ('instantaneous duration' is a game qualification, it doesn't literally mean 0 microseconds in-character), which is why Evasion requires special training and you can't just get lucky and Evade on a natural 20" (although I suspect that's a semi-popular houserule, or perhaps a 'crit save' where 20 + make a 2nd save gives you Evasion / Mettle).

My other favorite is the lack of 'facing' rules and 'parrying' mechanics in DnD, a popular source of complaints and homebrew (and even a UA variant rule). My explanation is that the bonuses/penalties for flanking, or denying a foe their Dex bonus to AC, reflect these: characters are assumed to be constantly making small movements to best deal with apparent threats, and so 'getting behind someone' generally requires circumstances like distractions (flanking buddies or feints) or unawareness (flat-footed or other Dex-denying things like invis). AoOs also represent some of the parrying mechanics, although there probably are some holes.

For example it's a semi-popular houserule to allow AoOs vs objects and helpless foes, b/c of the oddity of how a guy spellcasting near you allows you to attack more quickly than you can vs a helpless sparring dummy (perhaps the motions of spellcasting and ranged attacks actually help bring vulnerable hands of foes to you?). Of course, be ready for Combat Reflexes characters to become living high-speed dungeon-wall drills.

[KillianHawkeye]

For example it's a semi-popular houserule to allow AoOs vs objects and helpless foes, b/c of the oddity of how a guy spellcasting near you allows you to attack more quickly than you can vs a helpless sparring dummy (perhaps the motions of spellcasting and ranged attacks actually help bring vulnerable hands of foes to you?). Of course, be ready for Combat Reflexes characters to become living high-speed dungeon-wall drills.

I don't understand, how can an object or a helpless foe provoke an Attack of Opportunity? I've never heard of this houserule before.... :smallconfused:

[CTrees]

I don't understand, how can an object or a helpless foe provoke an Attack of Opportunity? I've never heard of this houserule before.... :smallconfused:

RAW, they can't, which is the problem.

Say you're a sixth level fighter with a longsword. Case A, you're standing in front of a sparring dummy, trying to beat it up. In two rounds, you make a full attack, hitting it up to four times. Case B, you're standing in front of a wizard, trying to beat it up (let's say you backed him into a corner). He took improved initiative, goes before you, tries to cast a spell. You get an AoO. Your turn, you make a full attack. His turn, he tries to cast, you get an AoO. Your second turn, you make a full attack. You've now potentially hit him, a living target with at least some pretense of trying to be evasive, six times in the same amount of time it took you to hit the sparring dummy, an inanimate object, four times. Add in combat reflexes and the wizard trying to move past you and you could make that eight hits in the same amount of time.

How does it make sense that you can hit a living target twice as often as you could an inanimate one? Or, say, a door? That's the issue w/ inaminate objects not provoking AoOs.

[Curmudgeon]

RAW, they can't, which is the problem.
...
How does it make sense that you can hit a living target twice as often as you could an inanimate one?
The Wizard is provoking AoOs by making measured, precise hand movements right in front of you, practically asking to have their hand cut up. That makes them do half the work for you. Of course you're going to get more attacks in the same time than you would against an inanimate sparring dummy. The difference is that the sparring dummy is trivially easy to hit, whereas you're going to miss the Wizard more of the time despite getting extra chances to swing at them when they're casting.

There's no problem that I can see.

[KillianHawkeye]

But there's no reason to ever compare those two situations, since you'll NEVER be incombat with an inanimate object. The number of times you can attack it in a round is immaterial.

[Cog]

But there's no reason to ever compare those two situations, since you'll NEVER be incombat with an inanimate object. The number of times you can attack it in a round is immaterial.
There can easily be times where you'd want to attack an inanimate object during a combat situation, though.

[CTrees]

Monsters which are dangerous enough to cause you to flee are chasing you. Blocking your exit is a door, barred from the other side. How long it takes you to break it down could be mightily important. Alt., the room is filling up with water. Same deal - can you break down the door/wall/ceiling before you drown?