Battle Jump Feat

[Iamtheend]

I keep hearing that people can take a lot of attacks with the feat Battle Jump. I would like help understanding this feat if anyone would care to help explain it to me.

1.) Alright let's say I have pounce to full attack on a charge, Battle Jump Feat, and Dimension Hop offered by the Freedom Mantle for Psychic characters. Can I Charge to pounce full attack then as a swift action after use Dimensional Hop to go above the enemy and then by falling start another pounce because Battle Jump initiates another charge?

2.) With Snap Kick and Sun School could I Dimensional Hop and get my Sun School Attack and Snap Kick then go right into another Battle Jump Charge?

3.) Could I do the charging pounce, Dimensional Hop into the Sunschool/Snap Kick, then Battle Jump?

4.) Are you allowed to Jump after a full attack? Could I Make a Full attack or a Pounce Full Attack, then Jump into the Air and do a Battle Jump?

5.) Could I Pounce, Dimensional Hop, Jump in one round?

[Cog]

I keep hearing that people can take a lot of attacks with the feat Battle Jump. I would like help understanding this feat if anyone would care to help explain it to me.
Rereading the feat, it occurs to me that perhaps it doesn't get around the action economy in the way that it's usually claimed to. To me, it simply gives an alternate set of circumstances for a charge: a reduced distance (5' instead of 10'), restricted to vertical-only, in return for either double damage or bonuses on a trip attack. It's changing shape of the pounce, not the action requirements of it.

A lot of people do read it to break the action economy, though, so I'll answer from that point of view for the rest, since the questions aren't very relevant otherwise:


1.) Alright let's say I have pounce to full attack on a charge, Battle Jump Feat, and Dimension Hop offered by the Freedom Mantle for Psychic characters. Can I Charge to pounce full attack then as a swift action after use Dimensional Hop to go above the enemy and then by falling start another pounce because Battle Jump initiates another charge?
Falling is insufficient. You need to "hurl" yourself, and to "jump"; simply appearing in midair doesn't give you the necessary momentum.


2.) With Snap Kick and Sun School could I Dimensional Hop and get my Sun School Attack and Snap Kick then go right into another Battle Jump Charge?
Sun School requires you to appear adjacent to your target, which is not compatible with the altitude you need to trigger a Battle Jump. If you mean to Hop next to your target, get your Sun School attack, and then jump into the air to try to trigger Battle Jump, your Jump still doesn't start from a sufficient altitude.


3.) Could I do the charging pounce, Dimensional Hop into the Sunschool/Snap Kick, then Battle Jump?
The first two parts work, but the last doesn't for the reason noted above.


4.) Are you allowed to Jump after a full attack? Could I Make a Full attack or a Pounce Full Attack, then Jump into the Air and do a Battle Jump?
Jump checks are made as part of movement, and if you have no movement to spend, you cannot make a Jump check. There are abilities, such as Hustle, Celerity, or Sudden Leap that can get you extra movement.


5.) Could I Pounce, Dimensional Hop, Jump in one round?
Yes, but your Dimension Hop would have to put you in a location sufficiently high to make your Battle Jump from, meaning you could not Sun School attack as well.

[Iamtheend]

I have been trying to find a thread on the internet discussing this argument. I can only find threads talking about threads where they've deducted this logic that Battle Jump is a separate set of circumstances that don't count as a normal Charge attack. Unfortunately no one in the threads I read link to the thread where they discuss the logic and I'm stuck having no idea on this.

Anyone able to explain this in detail or have a strong source on this issue?

[Cog]

Anyone able to explain this in detail or have a strong source on this issue?
That the feat's "Normal:" section says nothing about a modified action cost seems like a strong source to me. I don't know how "You can execute a charge by..." might be read to not be a charge, either.

[Dusk Eclipse]

By my reading you just need to jump to activate Battle jump and thus charge and pounce (if you have it). Therefore you can make up to two charges per tune (trading your standard action for a move).

[Cog]

Except that Battle Jump is a charge attack, and charge attacks have a specific action cost that Battle Jump says nothing about disregarding.

[Hirax]

Cog has it right, I don't see a way the feat text could be read differently. The first sentence under the benefit section of the feat text makes it very clear that it counts as a charge. I think the easiest way to think of the feat is that it's like leap attack, but with a different movement requirement and different damage modification.

[MeeposFire]

Ahh don't worry about it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Charge+pounce=full attack. Battle Jump allows you to charge by falling onto someone from a certain height up. If you can do that (be it a swift, move, or standard action), then Pounce triggers and gives you a full-attack!

Thus, Cog is wrong.: you simply need to jump onto an enemy and an enemy alone to start getting multiple full-attacks per round.

[ffone]

Charge+pounce=full attack. Battle Jump allows you to charge by falling onto someone from a certain height up. If you can do that (be it a swift, move, or standard action), then Pounce triggers and gives you a full-attack!

Thus, Cog is wrong.: you simply need to jump onto an enemy and an enemy alone to start getting multiple full-attacks per round.

So if you found a magic item in a manual that said "when you use this item, you can move 2x your normal speed a swift action," (sort of like MIC's Quicksilver Boots except 2x) - would that give you a charge at the end of that movement - and leave your full-round action unused for a second charge after?

Or - using 3 charges of a belt of battle, I could use the run action as a full round action, but elect to run 2x my movement in a straight line (instead of the full 3x-4x charge allows). Would this movement allow me to do a charge attack (without consuming any other actions - let's say I actually consumed my regular actions before activating the belt of battle) at the end of the movement?

Since a charge doesn't require 2x your speed movement, only 10....by the same logic being applied to Battle Jump, wouldn't *any* move of at least 10' (that's in a straight line and unencumbered and starts with line of sight to target etc.) trigger a free charge attack according to this reasoning?

The movement requirements for a charge, and the action requirements for a charge, are a logical 'AND'. You must meet both. Not one or the other. Battle Jump changes the movement part (and damage calculation). It says nothing about the action consumption.

[Craftworld]

What book is "Battle Jump" in?

[ffone]

What book is "Battle Jump" in?

Unapproachable East.

[MeeposFire]

It is from an older Forgotten Realms book which should tell how well they vetted the feat before it was published.

[Hirax]

It is from an older Forgotten Realms book which should tell how well they vetted the feat before it was published.

Along with the valorous enchantment in the same book. :smallbiggrin:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

So if you found a magic item in a manual that said "when you use this item, you can move 2x your normal speed a swift action," (sort of like MIC's Quicksilver Boots except 2x) - would that give you a charge at the end of that movement - and leave your full-round action unused for a second charge after?

Not even just your full-round action for one charge: your full-round action for up to two charges, given a large enough vertical jump check!


Or - using 3 charges of a belt of battle, I could use the run action as a full round action, but elect to run 2x my movement in a straight line (instead of the full 3x-4x charge allows). Would this movement allow me to do a charge attack (without consuming any other actions - let's say I actually consumed my regular actions before activating the belt of battle) at the end of the movement?

Again, only use one charge!


Since a charge doesn't require 2x your speed movement, only 10....by the same logic being applied to Battle Jump, wouldn't *any* move of at least 10' (that's in a straight line and unencumbered and starts with line of sight to target etc.) trigger a free charge attack according to this reasoning?

Not quite, it is a vertical jump check in addition to the height of whatever you wish to charge.


The movement requirements for a charge, and the action requirements for a charge, are a logical 'AND'. You must meet both. Not one or the other. Battle Jump changes the movement part (and damage calculation). It says nothing about the action consumption.

No, they are not. Because Battle Jump changes that.

EDIT: A "jump" check: that is it.

[ffone]

For those trying to get away with the free-action version of battle jump:

I wonder if you could set up a vertical shooting alley as follows: your guy DDs high into the air, directly over a column of monsters who each have perfect flight maneuverability and are currently hovering. They are spaced 10' apart vertically. Your guy starts freefalling, "charging" and (full) attacking one every 10 feet (naturally he took the Pouncebarian Dip That Everyone's Grandma Takes). If it matters, these monsters have some special quality that their bodies vanish when dropped to 0 HP (maybe a death throes of an energy type your guy is immune to, or a retarded Contingency to teleport their bodies conveniently into their pre-dug graves, or they're ghosts and he has a ghost touch weapon) so they don't impede his freefall. Freefall is what, 300' the first round and 600' each round after? Or was it 150' and 300'? Also, if battle jump doesn't require the foe be directly underneath you, the hovering monsters could be spread around the column (give our hero a reach weapon).

Obviously this is not a RAW argument (there are more retarded loopholes out there which are RAW), just for humor (and to illustrate that even if you believe that free action charges are the RAW of battle jump, it's retarded).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

For those trying to get away with the free-action version of battle jump:

I wonder if you could set up a vertical shooting alley as follows: your guy DDs high into the air, directly over a column of monsters who each have perfect flight maneuverability and are currently hovering. They are spaced 10' apart vertically. Your guy starts freefalling, "charging" and (full) attacking one every 10 feet (naturally he took the Pouncebarian Dip That Everyone's Grandma Takes). If it matters, these monsters have some special quality that their bodies vanish when dropped to 0 HP (maybe a death throes of an energy type your guy is immune to, or a retarded Contingency to teleport their bodies conveniently into their pre-dug graves, or they're ghosts and he has a ghost touch weapon) so they don't impede his freefall. Freefall is what, 300' the first round and 600' each round after? Or was it 150' and 300'? Also, if battle jump doesn't require the foe be directly underneath you, the hovering monsters could be spread around the column (give our hero a reach weapon).

Battle Jump changes what you need: to jump onto an enemy. What if a person had to run to his target, thereby eating up the entirety of his 4x normal movement?

Therefore, it uses whatever action is needed to to jump! No more, no less. I understand what you are saying, but you are simply wrong.

EDIT: Simply read the first line! You can execute a charge simply by dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent. You are simply putting too much language into the charge action. For counterpoint number 2: Partial Charge action. Only a standard.

[ffone]

...but horizontal movement doesn't require a full round action, yet a charge specifically does. So the argument "falling is free so the charge attack is free" is or "jumping is a move action so the battle jump charge attack is a move action" is clearly false. By the same argument a regular character could make a charge attack after 10' of movement (using only the move action, or maybe a swift if they were using quicksilver boots, belt of battle single charges, etc.).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

...but horizontal movement doesn't require a full round action, yet a charge specifically does. So the argument "falling is free so the charge attack is free" is clearly false. By the same argument a regular character could make a charge attack after 10' of movement (using only the move action, or maybe a swift if they were using quicksilver boots, belt of battle single charges, etc.).

See the edit. Check the raw RAW.

[MeeposFire]

No matter how you do this feat you will end up with problems.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

No matter how you do this feat you will end up with problems.

Well, yeah, welcome to RAW. The issue is Charge takes some action and gives you some things for it. Battle Jump changes what action it is to just be "falling/jumping." Doesn't matter what action it is, it is another charge.

Pounce makes your charges into full-attacks. Therefore, you use a swift action to charge, then, well, full-attack.

[ffone]

It says "You can execute a charge simply by dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent." Not "any time you...". It says "simply by dropping" but it says "charge."

All the sentence refers to is movement, thus all it's changing about a regular charge is movement. By the same logic as 'bypasses the action requirement of a charge' you could say it bypasses any and every other requirement of a charge. For example: if you don't have line of sight to a foe at the beginning of the drop, you still can't execute a charge. Heck, by your reasoning, you could charge attack an invisible foe whom you didn't know existed. After all, you just have to "simply drop" from the right position, which you might do by dumb luck, and clearly that triggers a charge attack, right?

This is the deductive vs extapolative reasoning that most of these debates comes down to. "The feat changes exactly what it says it changes" vs "the feat changes everything it doesn't specifically say it doesn't change."

Imagine the free-action charge interpretation were the correct reading. Then every time the designers wanted to write a feat which only modified an action in a specific way, like charge or trip, they would have to recopy the text of charge, trip, or whatever to say exactly how this new thing worked. "Inheritance" is an important principle in interpreting rules - the idea that when something like 'charge' is referred to in a feat, or a certain spell is referred to in the text of a creature's supernatural ability, then you know that the new thing works exactly like the old one except for the differences it spells out (which for example include the Su designation - bypasses SR and can't be dispelled etc.)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It says "You can execute a charge simply by dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent." Not "any time you...". It says "simply by dropping" but it says "charge."

All the sentence refers to is movement, thus all it's changing about a regular charge is movement. By the same logic as 'bypasses the action requirement of a charge' you could say it bypasses any and every other requirement of a charge. For example: if you don't have line of sight to a foe at the beginning of the drop, you still can't execute a charge. Heck, by your reasoning, you could charge attack an invisible foe whom you didn't know existed. After all, you just have to "simply drop" from the right position, which you might do by dumb luck, and clearly that triggers a charge attack, right?

Falling is a type of jump. Your rules add to more a charge than are there! Partial charges are an exception. Guess what, so is Battle Jump, simply because it alters the rules to a pounce. Same as Pounce. These are RAW: no more or less.

I can blow a swift action to fall, a move action, or even a full-round. Doesn't mean you need to.

[ffone]

Last post. If you want free action full attacks and your DM wants to let you, who am I to judge.

I'm not sure 'partial charges' exist in 3.5 or just in 3.0 (except when you are only allowed 1 action in a round, like a surprise round or you are slowed). Even if they do it wouldn't resolve the discussion or prove your point, since falling or jumping aren't standard actions (i.e. there would still be a dispute over the action type, and the existence of standard action charges gives no credence to free/move action charges).

If you were to ask someone, "for a general character, can you charge by moving at least 10' feet in a straight line with no impediments, and line of sight?" they would say "Yes." That would not mean they were saying "oh, and the charge requires no action other than that required to move the 10 feet." This is what the language of Battle Jump is saying.

In other words, like other feats, Battle Jump only contradicts (i.e. changes) the charge rules in the way it specifically says (since falling is not normally allowable as part of charge movement).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Last post. If you want free action full attacks and your DM wants to let you, who am I to judge.

I'm not sure 'partial charges' exist in 3.5 or just in 3.0 (except when you are only allowed 1 action in a round, like a surprise round or you are slowed). Even if they do it wouldn't resolve the discussion or prove your point, since falling or jumping aren't standard actions (i.e. there would still be a dispute over the action type, and the existence of standard action charges gives no credence to free/move action charges).


If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#charge)

So, in 3.5, it is easily doable, even if you must first charge to do so. I still stand by that a charge does NOT equal a full-round action, however. The rules agree to this. Therefore, while it normally would take one of those three actions, in the case of Battle Jump, hell no!

EDIT: Stop it with the strawman, too, at the start.

[Thespianus]

What if you were grabbed by a monster and thrown into the air. Would you be allowed to charge "simply by dropping" on your way down, even though it's not on your turn?

The feat doesn't mention anyting about the charge having to be on your initiative count, so it should be allowed?

;)

Or, in other words: Have a couple of level 1 Goliaths along with you. Their only job in battle is to throw you around, towards your enemies. Hey, presto: As many charge attacks as you can get Goliaths to follow you around. ;)

[Iamtheend]

As written this feat is confusing but would this scenario seem more reasonable?

During my normal full attack or even a pouncing charge of 3 attacks I use Dimensional Hop as a swift action before my last attack. I am placed above my enemy and fall down. Now my last attack is considered a charge with pounce I do another full attack.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Never noticed that it could be read that way. Telfhammer Shadowlord gets a full attack every time it teleports. You can find numerous builds under the title shadowpouncer. The last/best ones I saw took RKV and used all three Shadowhand tp's with their Standard, move and swift actions then if they need more they can use RKV maneuver recovery/action economy breakage or use a free action to activate an effect from an item.

[Keneth]

Charge is a full-round action (or a move/standard if your actions are limited). When you charge (and pounce but that's irrelevant), you use up your actions for that round. Now the Battle Jump feat says "You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent." and that is completely true, it alters the conditions under which you are allowed to initiate a charge but doing so still requires you to expend a full-round action (it doesn't explicitly say otherwise, so original rules apply), thus making charge an illegal action. This is a standard case of "you can but you may not" and any sane DM is gonna rule it like this.

Just because the writers didn't copy paste the entirety of the rules that were not explicitly changed by the variant, doesn't mean that those rules are suddenly up for player interpretation. They do have to conserve space in rulebooks, you know? :smallconfused:

[Cog]

EDIT: Simply read the first line!
Reading the first line is a start but it is not sufficient. Simply read the whole description and you'll see how you must "jump" and how you must "hurl" yourself at your foe, which as pointed out, are descriptions of movement and not falling. Unless you have some rules reason to disregard those restrictions?

Again, Battle Jump makes no comment on action cost. There isn't enough there to say it overrides normal rules. A very close analogy would be saying that casting a Stilled, Silent spell is now a free action, since those feats say you don't have to wiggle your hands or flap your tongue anymore - after all, those feats don't give an action cost either!


During my normal full attack or even a pouncing charge of 3 attacks I use Dimensional Hop as a swift action before my last attack. I am placed above my enemy and fall down. Now my last attack is considered a charge with pounce I do another full attack. Merely falling is not, and never will be, enough to trigger a Battle Jump.

[Iamtheend]

This is the absolute first line of the description of the feat for Battle Jumps Benefit.

"You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent."

[Keneth]

And this is the third:
You can't jump from more than 30 feet above your opponent, nor can you effectively battle jump while under the influence of a fly or levitate spell or effect, as you have to hurl yourself down on your foe.

From the dictionary:

–verb (used with object)
1. to throw or fling with great force or vigor.

In effect, you must exert some manner of force to propel yourself downwards and cannot simply rely on the force of gravity. Maybe you could do it with an effect like Air Walk but as it is, you're just reading selectively.

[Elric VIII]

Hurling yourself down on your foe always bothered me, in context of Battle Jump. With the exception of walking on the ceiling prior to using the feat, how are you supposed to generate a downward force, other than gravity?


Although, in regards to the topics of the OP, if I understand it correctly, a Monk/Psionic Class using Sun School, Snap Kick, and Shock Trooper could Charge and PA for full and get 2 unarmed strikes, then Dimension Hop behind the same enemy for 2 more at full PA off his AC.

[Cog]

This is the absolute first line of the description of the feat for Battle Jumps Benefit.
If the first line of the feat were all that was needed to resolve the effect of it, they would have only printed the first line. You have to read the whole feat, and as noted both before and since your comment, the whole feat specifies that merely falling is not enough.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Reading the first line is a start but it is not sufficient. Simply read the whole description and you'll see how you must "jump" and how you must "hurl" yourself at your foe, which as pointed out, are descriptions of movement and not falling. Unless you have some rules reason to disregard those restrictions?

Right. Battle Jump offers another method to "trigger" a charge without necessarily eating up a full-round action. The fact that you could, say use a normal full-round action to charge to charge someone then use a maneuver as a swift action to jump again and therefore trigger Battle Jump helps to illistrate that it does NOT require a full-round action: Battle Jump offers another action type - potentially all action types - to trigger the charge action.


Again, Battle Jump makes no comment on action cost. There isn't enough there to say it overrides normal rules. A very close analogy would be saying that casting a Stilled, Silent spell is now a free action, since those feats say you don't have to wiggle your hands or flap your tongue anymore - after all, those feats don't give an action cost either!

Merely falling is not, and never will be, enough to trigger a Battle Jump.

Except I have provided an alternative to the normal rules. Battle Jump - much like power attack and override them, just as the low level jumping maneuver from Tiger Claw that says "Jump as a swift action." After you have blown your full-round action for anything else, then you can use your swift action to... charge again. Because Battle Jump simply doesn't care.

Normally the rules say blah, but there are numerous things that say otherwise. I have proposed that, because Battle Jump offers such a different action (again, possibly any action), then, therefore charges are based on the action used to create that charge. No more, no less.

[Iamtheend]

If the first line of the feat were all that was needed to resolve the effect of it, they would have only printed the first line. You have to read the whole feat, and as noted both before and since your comment, the whole feat specifies that merely falling is not enough.
Look back and you'll see why I wrote it like that. Person previously to me justified their argument by similar argument and I was countering them. I should of quoted.

[Cog]

Right. Battle Jump offers another method to "trigger" a charge without necessarily eating up a full-round action.
Or it simply offers another set of move conditions. Normally, you need ten feet of movement across open terrain to execute a charge; with Battle Jump you instead need only five feet of movement along vertical space. That's a new "trigger" that is easily swapped into the basic charge phrasing without requiring another change, and provides a benefit as well - it lets you charge from half the distance you'd otherwise require.


The fact that you could, say use a normal full-round action to charge to charge someone then use a maneuver as a swift action to jump again and therefore trigger Battle Jump helps to illistrate that it does NOT require a full-round action...
This is only a "fact" if you follow from your assumptions about Battle Jump in the first place. Yes, if Battle Jump only requires movement to trigger, then it only requires movement to trigger; that's a tautology (in the logical sense, not the rhetorical sense - no insult intended). However, I disagree that Battle Jump requires only a move action, and so I disagree that Sudden Leap would trigger Battle Jump.


...Battle Jump offers another action type - potentially all action types - to trigger the charge action.
No. Battle Jump offers no action types at all. It is entirely silent on the issue.


Except I have provided an alternative to the normal rules. Battle Jump - much like power attack and override them, just as the low level jumping maneuver from Tiger Claw that says "Jump as a swift action."
No, you've taken advantage of a lack of comment on the rules. There's no alternative given in Battle Jump. Sudden Leap gives an alternative, Hustle gives an alternative, Celerity gives an alternative. Battle Jump instead tells you that you're making a charge.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Or it simply offers another set of move conditions. Normally, you need ten feet of movement across open terrain to execute a charge; with Battle Jump you instead need only five feet of movement along vertical space. That's a new "trigger" that is easily swapped into the basic charge phrasing without requiring another change, and provides a benefit as well - it lets you charge from half the distance you'd otherwise require.

And by doing so, it obviates the need for a full-round action, because I could take a move action to do so, meaning that my charge is a move action. The specific trumps the general case, after all.


This is only a "fact" if you follow from your assumptions about Battle Jump in the first place. Yes, if Battle Jump only requires movement to trigger, then it only requires movement to trigger; that's a tautology (in the logical sense, not the rhetorical sense - no insult intended). However, I disagree that Battle Jump requires only a move action, and so I disagree that Sudden Leap would trigger Battle Jump.

Fair enough, but this can lead to a massive contradiction in the charge rules versus what Battle Jump says. A character uses his full-round action for whatever else have you. He then uses Hustle or something else to jump onto someone else, triggering Battle Jump. Charge rules say "No," but Battle Jump - a new, more precise condition on charging - says "Yes." As DND generally goes to "Specific trumps general" in the way of feats (See Power Attack and anything else that breaks the "normal" rules for combat), I am arguing that it is therefore the case that Battle Jump merely offers a new trigger for a charge - one that need not take a full-round action - merely whichever action it was that caused it to create this new "charge."



No. Battle Jump offers no action types at all. It is entirely silent on the issue.

Right, so I am arguing that, because of the impossibility of using Hustle to charge or Swift Leap to charge or anything else to charge when you are already out of move, standard, or full-round actions, then, therefore, as Battle Jump is a modification to the charging rules, that it has precedence over those very rules (what, being a feat and all). Thus, if I used a swift action to fall on someone and it becomes a charge it therefore is a charge from a swift action alone because Battle Jump "triggers" it to become a charge.



No, you've taken advantage of a lack of comment on the rules. There's no alternative given in Battle Jump. Sudden Leap gives an alternative, Hustle gives an alternative, Celerity gives an alternative. Battle Jump instead tells you that you're making a charge.

Well then, we are simply left with a two cases. Either Battle Jump is a conditional modifier to the normal rules, allowing one to create charges off of any action type that simply lets you fall or jump onto someone, or the default rules say "No, even with your feat, you can't use a swift action to charge someone."

I am saying that, because Battle Jump offers (and triggers) an alternative to a normal charge, then that charge is therefore whichever action type was used to create it. I stand by this because of additional things like Sudden Leap and the fact that Battle Jump is a feat unto itself that actively alters the rules on charges that this must be the case, as Battle Jump takes priority over the default rules simply due to the fact that it is a feat that says something different on charging.