Battle Jump Benny Clarification

[GhengisConrad]

So, what's the consensus here?

To clarify, what I would like clarification on, is what exactly the benefit of Battle Jump is.

Looking at how it is under 'normal', it would seem the benefit ought to be... not that.

"Normal
Anybody can try to jump down on an enemy, but it is not considered a charge"

So

....

A person with battlejump can try to jump down on an enemy, and it is considered a charge


amirait people?

And what are the required conditions of that jump? At the beginning of your round, by the end of your round, after or including the move action of your round?

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

At the very least, with flight, it gives me a kind of... stagger quality... no?

I'll settle for "the best you can do is fly up, fall, and then execute pounce by falling. But no standard action first", as only so much can be done in 6 seconds. But I need consensus on this, it is the cornerstone of my build.

[Darrin]

So, what's the consensus here?


On Battle Jump? It's "Consult with your DM".



A person with battlejump can try to jump down on an enemy, and it is considered a charge


The problem with this feat is the person who wrote it didn't think very hard about the rules for jumping, charging, or falling. There a lot of these kinds of things in Forgotten Realms: "Very neat idea, very poor execution."

The way I interpret it, any movement or action (or non-action) that results in falling on an enemy from above at the appropriate height becomes a charge, and pounce allows a full-round attack after a charge. If you can use different types of actions to trigger it multiple times on your turn, so be it. MSHNT = "Melee Should Have Nice Things" once in a while.

The only shaky part of your build (at least from my interpretation) is Battle Jump specifically says it won't work if you're under a "fly or levitate spell or effect". You're using non-magical flight, but the rules never precisely defined what an "effect" is. The rules for flying presumably allow you to stop moving and fall into a chosen square, so if I were DM I would allow this, but I'm not your DM.

I think the only thing we haven't done with your build yet is work the Dungeon Crasher ACF (Dungeonscape) and Knock-Down/Shock Trooper into it, so you can fall -> pounce -> falling object damage (1d6 per 200 lbs, 20d6 max) -> bull rush into ground -> 8d6 bludgeoning damage.

[GhengisConrad]

The rules for flying presumably allow you to stop moving and fall into a chosen square

I'm afraid to link directly.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=all+about+movement+part+five&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

"Deliberately Freefalling: A flying creature can simply stop flying and allow itself to drop like a stone. "

So, the rules do allow such a thing... so... controversy over?

Look, here's the problem. My table, we DM eachother/ourselves on ALOT of issues. If its not generally excepted, its not doable.



I think the only thing we haven't done with your build yet is work the Dungeon Crasher ACF (Dungeonscape) and Knock-Down/Shock Trooper into it, so you can fall -> pounce -> falling object damage (1d6 per 200 lbs, 20d6 max) -> bull rush into ground -> 8d6 bludgeoning damage.

lol. "yet".

[broodax]

I think by far the most reasonable reading of battle jump is that it makes an exception to this portion of the charge rules:


You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)

If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent.

Allowing that you can also charge, even if you do not meet any of the above requirements, if you instead jump or fall on your opponent.


Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

I don't think any reasonable reading would change the fact that a charge is a full round action. Battle jump just lessens those tight restrictions on movement.

[Darrin]

Look, here's the problem. My table, we DM eachother/ourselves on ALOT of issues. If its not generally excepted, its not doable.


This is admirable, but asking for a generally accepted consensus from an online forum is a little like trying to nail jello to the wall with a cat wearing rollerskates. You're probably better off getting a consensus from your group than from an online forum. They're a much better authority on what works for your group.

On this particular forum, we usually settle rules disputes by appealing to Curmudgeon or post to the Simple Q&A thread (which he follows closely). Not everyone agrees with him, and he has a tendency to be very literal-minded, but when it comes to Rules As Written, he's an unimpeachable authority.

If I had to guess, he'd probably say you don't qualify for Battle Jump because you're not a Taer, which are psychotic white-furred apelike medium-sized giants and the only residents of the Taer region. No one else lives in the region because psychotic furry apes suicidally divebomb them from cliffs and overhangs.

The last time he weighed in, the issue was whether Battle Jump could be combined with Leap Attack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250329). He said "no", and while I disagree with him, I'm willing to concede that his opinion is probably closer to the "generally accepted consensus".

[GhengisConrad]

I don't know whats wrong with me and my table. I really think we do all have a form of autism or something.

I try to imagine 'letting it go'... and... I just can't. I just can't. And neither will they be able too I am sure.

On the otherhand. If I'm being honest, we do homebrew some slight things, and they make me dirty just mentioning them. One of our very few things, is Region Requirements are met by having 2 ranks of Knowledge.

Does anyone know how to summon a Curmudgeon to their thread?

[Darrin]

I posted the "Flying Battle Jump" question to the Q&A thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16718529&postcount=463). You should have a consensus shortly.

[broodax]

That isn't really the difficult question. We have already established that as long as you don't move the minimum forward distance flying, you can fall as a free action, and it's pretty clear that natural flight is not a "fly or levitate spell or effect".

The major question is does the text "You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent" imply that you can ignore the normal rules about a charge being a full round action and charge any time you fall, even if you've already taken a standard action/move action in the round.

[GhengisConrad]

That isn't really the difficult question. We have already established that as long as you don't move the minimum forward distance flying, you can fall as a free action, and it's pretty clear that natural flight is not a "fly or levitate spell or effect".

The major question is does the text "You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent" imply that you can ignore the normal rules about a charge being a full round action and charge any time you fall, even if you've already taken a standard action/move action in the round.

This. This +5.

[Darrin]

The major question is does the text "You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent" imply that you can ignore the normal rules about a charge being a full round action and charge any time you fall, even if you've already taken a standard action/move action in the round.

But that's exactly what the feat says it does. D&D is an exception-based rules system. Battle Jump is an exception to how the normal charge rules work.

Granted, it's one of the most confusing and badly-worded feats in 3.x, but... if it doesn't work that way, then how exactly is it supposed to work? I don't think I've seen anyone explain that yet. Do you mean that to use Battle Jump, you can only use it as a full-round action?

[broodax]

I guess I'd add that my interpretation, while I happen to think it's the right one, is also pretty clearly, if anything, MORE permissive than RAW would dictate.

The Battle Jump feat does not say anywhere that it changes the type of action that Charge requires, therefore it doesn't.

You could argue even further, it also says nothing about changing the requirements for Line of Sight at start of turn, no intervening creatures, etc. And, it is likely entirely useless a large percentage of the time because if you are standing on a ledge, there is an object between you and your opponent, so you can't charge, and the feat doesn't say anything about changing that rule. The only thing it explicitly allows is a charge when falling or jumping, all the other normal rules stay intact because the feat doesn't charge them.

*note - the word "simply" doesn't do anything. It's descriptive, it doesn't change any rules by itself.


But that's exactly what the feat says it does. D&D is an exception-based rules system. Battle Jump is an exception to how the normal charge rules work.

Granted, it's one of the most confusing and badly-worded feats in 3.x, but... if it doesn't work that way, then how exactly is it supposed to work? I don't think I've seen anyone explain that yet. Do you mean that to use Battle Jump, you can only use it as a full-round action?

Exactly. Does Battle Jump say it changes the type of action required for a charge? No? Then it doesn't. It lets you charge by falling at least 5 feet and no more than 30 feet (instead of by moving at least 10 feet and no more than double your movement), and that's all it does.

Well, not all it does, it gives you double damage, extra size bonuses, etc. The "Normal" section of the feat even tries to help out by explaining what the differences are:


Normal
Anybody can try to jump down on an enemy, but it is not considered a charge, and they do not gain double damage or the size bonus for the ensuing attack.

Note it doesn't say "normally a charge is a full round action" or "normally you can't move and then move again as part of a charge" because, while those are normally the case, they're still the case with the feat.

[Darrin]

The Battle Jump feat does not say anywhere that it changes the type of action that Charge requires, therefore it doesn't.


I'm still trying to understand your argument. You're saying that charge still requires a full-round action.



You could argue even further, it also says nothing about changing the requirements for Line of Sight at start of turn, no intervening creatures, etc. And, it is likely entirely useless a large percentage of the time because if you are standing on a ledge, there is an object between you and your opponent, so you can't charge, and the feat doesn't say anything about changing that rule. The only thing it explicitly allows is a charge when falling or jumping, all the other normal rules stay intact because the feat doesn't charge them.


So... your argument is that the only way to use this feat is to climb a vertical cliff face and just hang there waiting until someone is dumb enough to walk directly underneath you. Not even waiting at the edge of a ledge will work (the ledge mentioned in the feat description) because the ledge itself counts as an obstacle between you and your intended target. No other movement or action type is possible if it interferes with taking a full-round action to charge. It's basically worthless, and will only be used by a psychotic DM that wants to bombard his unwary PCs with homicidal apemen.

Ok, I think I resorted to more than a few rhetorical fallacies there, but... I'm not finding your argument very compelling.

[broodax]

I am saying that that is what the feat does by RAW, yes.

I agree with you that that would be pretty silly, though, and if you look up, you'll see that what I think it was intended to do is remove the normal movement limitations of Charge, as all the descriptions and fluff in the feat point that way.

I do not think it was intended to allow extra actions in a turn though, as nothing in the feat description even implies that, and it certainly doesn't say it.

[Randomocity132]

My first instinct reading it was to be on a ledge or overhang and fall off, onto somebody, a la Assassin's Creed. The description regarding flying seems to confirm this idea by steering it away from trying to fly and achieve this.

[GhengisConrad]

I'm not sure I am convinced RAW or RAI it doesn't grant you the ability to commit a charge simply by falling.

Consider the rather clear language of the 'normal'

"Normal
Anybody can try to jump down on an enemy, but it is not considered a charge"

Therefor, with battlejump, jumping down on an enemy is considered a charge... no?

This seems very reasonable to me.


The description regarding flying seems to confirm this idea by steering it away from trying to fly and achieve this.
You cannot jump/fall/stall while under an effect or spell, so it makes sense they would mention that (and not stalling/normal flight).

[broodax]

Yes, it is considered a charge, which is why you can't do it if you don't have a full round action available.

[GhengisConrad]

So I fall midway through my round, and then, because I am falling, it is considered a charge, but then... somehow... my fall is reversed because I didn't have a full-round to execute it?

Or, because I have the feat, I can no longer fall unless I have a full round to do so?