Athletics DC and jumping

[Foxydono]

Let me start by saying that I am aware that there is a thread about whether the barbarian should succeed at his jump or not. This made me think about how I would want to rule jumping checks in general and decided to make a new thread, because I didn't want to polute the other thread.

Let's take a human fighter with 20 Strength as an example. Without any checks and with a 10 ft head start he can jump:
- Horizontal jump: 20 feet (same as his Strength)
- Vertical jump 3 + 5 (same as his Strength modifier) = 8 ft.

So, what if the character wants to jump further or higher, but within the limits of his movement speed? My idea is as follows (Kane0 suggested this already):

- Horizontal jump: 5 + the additional distance beyond what he nornally can jump in ft.
- Vertical jump: 5 + 3 for each extra ft. beyond what he normally can jump.

Lets say our human warrior takes a dash action and can move 60 feet and takes his 10 ft head start. He would like to jump 30 feet. This is 10 ft. above what he can do without a check, so his DC would be 5 + 10 = 15. If he wants to make a vertical jump of 12 ft., this would be 4 ft. above what he normally can. So his DC would be 5 + (3x4) = 17.

What do you guys think of this method? Alternatively, you can make the base DC 10 or even 15 if you think it's too low, without changing the method to determine the DC.

[Tanarii]

As I said in the other thread, I consider that far too low. Mostly because on the low end, a Str 8 untrained character can make a 10ft jump with a DC 7, or only 30% chance of failure.

If I was going to rule a standard method like this (I'm not), I'd probably go either DC 10 + 2 / per extra 10% distance, or DC 10 + 2 / extra 1 ft. Most likely the latter, because that'd stop str from effectively double counting: once for the % distance and once for the actual check bonus.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I don't think it makes much sense to make the DC proportional to extra distance. For one thing, it has wildly different effects at different Str values. For another thing, I would rarely if ever know exactly how many feet a jump needs to be. If I want a jump to be Hard, it's DC ~20. That's kinda just how you're supposed to run 5E.

But a fudged set of guidelines:

DC 0: Normal jumping length at no stress, no serious adverse conditions and no meaningful (in a meta sense) consequences of failure.

DC 10: Normal jumping length with some minor element of stress or inconvenience and meaningful consequences of failure.

DC 15: Notable adverse conditions (e.g. difficult footing, no clean takeoff, bad lighting, bats in hair), or marginally longer than normal distance (10-15%).

DC 20: Compounded adverse conditions as above, or significantly longer than normal distance (~25%).

DC 21-22: Jumping from roof to elevated railway (with spikes) to show off (barbarian only).

DC 25: Cumulative effects of suboptimal conditions and/or length as above, or way longer than normal distance (up to 50%).

[Foxydono]

As I said in the other thread, I consider that far too low. Mostly because on the low end, a Str 8 untrained character can make a 10ft jump with a DC 7, or only 30% chance of failure.

If I was going to rule a standard method like this (I'm not), I'd probably go either DC 10 + 2 / per extra 10% distance, or DC 10 + 2 / extra 1 ft. Most likely the latter, because that'd stop str from effectively double counting: once for the % distance and once for the actual check bonus.
I do not understand what you mean with 'per extra 10% distance' or 'extra 1 ft', could you give a more specified example? And if you find the DC too low with the base 5 + X, can't you just set the base DC to 10 or 15 instead of 5 or don't you agree with the method?

[Foxydono]

I don't think it makes much sense to make the DC proportional to extra distance. For one thing, it has wildly different effects at different Str values. For another thing, I would rarely if ever know exactly how many feet a jump needs to be. If I want a jump to be Hard, it's DC ~20. That's kinda just how you're supposed to run 5E.
But isn't the whole idea of having a higher Strength and athletics that you can therefore jump a longer distance? For me it makes a lot of sense to make a DC proportional to the distance. The higher you roll the further you can jump makes sense to me. If you put it in terms of 'Hard' as you call it. A long jump is 'harder' then a short jump, so you'd have a higher DC even by your proposed standards.

Of course if you don't know the distance or you just rule it easy - medium - hard - impossible you can just set the standard DC's. That is a fine way to determine the DC check as well. In the premade campaigns they often say the distance though in my experience. Or you can see it on the dungeon map in squares.

[Coffee_Dragon]

But isn't the whole idea of having a higher Strength and athletics that you can therefore jump a longer distance? For me it makes a lot of sense to make a DC proportional to the distance.

If you base the DC on extra distance then it won't be proportional to total distance; characters with low strength will get a better feet-to-difficulty ratio.

I actually think it's a little awkward that Strength is double-counted through normal distance and rolling exceed it, but I'm not sure there's a non-awkward way around that.

[Tanarii]

I do not understand what you mean with 'per extra 10% distance' or 'extra 1 ft', could you give a more specified example? And if you find the DC too low with the base 5 + X, can't you just set the base DC to 10 or 15 instead of 5 or don't you agree with the method?

Sure, two example: Str 8 jumping 10ft. Str 16 jumping 20ft.

Using % based, then it's:
+2ft / 8ft = 25%; DC = 10 + 2*3 = 16
+4ft / 16ft = 20%; DC = 10 + 2*2 = 14

using straight numbers it is:
+2ft; DC = 10+2*2 = 14
+4ft; DC = 10+2*4 = 18

In other words, the +2 * % method makes it much easier for stronger characters to jump the same extra distance. Whereas the straight +2 * # method makes it the same difficulty for each extra foot.

Edit: the disadvantage of the % method is Str counts double for extra distance - once in making the check value lower, and once in giving you a bigger bonus. In the straight bonus method it's only counted once, in the bonus to the check.

[EvilAnagram]

I just homebrewed it so that the DC of a running horizontal jump is equal to the length of the jump in feet. For vertical, it's double the height in feet plus 4. You need to jump an eight-foot fence? Roll a DC 20 check. A thirty-foot crevice? DC 30.

[Coffee_Dragon]

In the straight bonus method it's only counted once, in the bonus to the check.

Doesn't it also set the zero level from which the straight bonus is counted?

[Hawkstar]

As I said in the other thread, I consider that far too low. Mostly because on the low end, a Str 8 untrained character can make a 10ft jump with a DC 7, or only 30% chance of failure.

If I was going to rule a standard method like this (I'm not), I'd probably go either DC 10 + 2 / per extra 10% distance, or DC 10 + 2 / extra 1 ft. Most likely the latter, because that'd stop str from effectively double counting: once for the % distance and once for the actual check bonus.

I don't see why having a 30% chance to fail a task an average person succeeds 100% of the time on is a problem. A STR 8 character WILL fail a 10' jump 30% of the time, when absolutely anyone who hasn't dumped STR makes it 100% of the time.

[Foxydono]

Sure, two example: Str 8 jumping 10ft. Str 16 jumping 20ft.

Using % based, then it's:
+2ft / 8ft = 25%; DC = 10 + 2*3 = 16
+4ft / 16ft = 20%; DC = 10 + 2*2 = 14

using straight numbers it is:
+2ft; DC = 10+2*2 = 14
+4ft; DC = 10+2*4 = 18

In other words, the +2 * % method makes it much easier for stronger characters to jump the same extra distance. Whereas the straight +2 * # method makes it the same difficulty for each extra foot.

Edit: the disadvantage of the % method is Str counts double for extra distance - once in making the check value lower, and once in giving you a bigger bonus. In the straight bonus method it's only counted once, in the bonus to the check.
Well I still only half understand your calculation, but doesn't the last method look a lot like what I proposed, but in a different jacket?

The difference that 1 ft extra equals +2 DC in your calculation and u use 10 DC as a starting point rather than a DC of 5.

So the calculation becomes: DC 10 + 2* distance in ft. I personally find that way too hars and would go with DC 10 + extra distance instead. But you can apply the same method as I suggested.

Edit: Well after thinking about it, it's not that harsh. I mean a 30 ft cliff would become a 10 + 2*10 = 30 DC. That's the same as what EvilAnagram does, only without the fuzzy calculations :p.

[Foxydono]

I just homebrewed it so that the DC of a running horizontal jump is equal to the length of the jump in feet. For vertical, it's double the height in feet plus 4. You need to jump an eight-foot fence? Roll a DC 20 check. A thirty-foot crevice? DC 30.
Nice and easy, I like your approach :). Do you also make checks for 10 ft jumps then? Assuming the character has a Strength of 10 or higher.

[JellyPooga]

I just homebrewed it so that the DC of a running horizontal jump is equal to the length of the jump in feet. For vertical, it's double the height in feet plus 4. You need to jump an eight-foot fence? Roll a DC 20 check. A thirty-foot crevice? DC 30.


Nice and easy, I like your approach :). Do you also make checks for 10 ft jumps then? Assuming the character has a Strength of 10 or higher.

IIRC in 3ed the DC for a long jump was equal to the distance in feet, doubled if you didn't have a run-up. Simply making your Str score a minimum on this check is not a bad way to go IMO. So if you've got Str 10, you can always jump a 10ft pit, but any further would require a Moderate to Very Hard roll. Only those with Expertise, super-human Str and/or high skill would (or should) ever be able to make Near Impossible (DC:30+) jumps.

[Foxydono]

IIRC in 3ed the DC for a long jump was equal to the distance in feet, doubled if you didn't have a run-up. Simply making your Str score a minimum on this check is not a bad way to go IMO. So if you've got Str 10, you can always jump a 10ft pit, but any further would require a Moderate to Very Hard roll. Only those with Expertise, super-human Str and/or high skill would (or should) ever be able to make Near Impossible (DC:30+) jumps.
Like a DC 10 + extra distance (*2 if you like) for example? :p

[Alerad]

I know it's a little unorthodox, but I use Jump DC = distance in feet. It's very simple. Better Athletics give you better chances.
Advantage on the check with running start, always roll for distances greater than 5 feet. No automatic/minimum jump distance.

The impossible end (DC 30 = 30 feet) is a little better than the long jump world record, which I find suitable.

[Zalabim]

When I wanted to set a DC, if it's going to be an absolute value instead of based on the amount of extra difference, I looked at what the automatic jumping distances are.

So with 8 Strength you're allowed 8 feet horizontal and 2 feet vertical with a -1 to strength checks. With 20 Strength you're allowed 20 feet horizontal and 8 feet vertical with a +5 to strength checks. So it's +1 vertical per +1 check bonus and +2 horizontal per +1 check bonus. If I consider the base distance the "passive jumping score" or taking 10, then vertical jumps are DC 7+height and horizontal jumps are DC 5 + (distance/2). Use double the height/distance if you don't have that running start. That makes DC 20 a 13 foot leap off the ground or bounding a distance of 30 feet. That's probably too easy for most tables, though Jump is just a level 1 spell. You can of course modify the starting point if you don't want high level rogues reliably leaping 30+ feet with athletics expertise alone.

[ChubbyRain]

Let me start by saying that I am aware that there is a thread about whether the barbarian should succeed at his jump or not. This made me think about how I would want to rule jumping checks in general and decided to make a new thread, because I didn't want to polute the other thread.

Let's take a human fighter with 20 Strength as an example. Without any checks and with a 10 ft head start he can jump:
- Horizontal jump: 20 feet (same as his Strength)
- Vertical jump 3 + 5 (same as his Strength modifier) = 8 ft.

So, what if the character wants to jump further or higher, but within the limits of his movement speed? My idea is as follows (Kane0 suggested this already):

- Horizontal jump: 5 + the additional distance beyond what he nornally can jump in ft.
- Vertical jump: 5 + 3 for each extra ft. beyond what he normally can jump.

Lets say our human warrior takes a dash action and can move 60 feet and takes his 10 ft head start. He would like to jump 30 feet. This is 10 ft. above what he can do without a check, so his DC would be 5 + 10 = 15. If he wants to make a vertical jump of 12 ft., this would be 4 ft. above what he normally can. So his DC would be 5 + (3x4) = 17.

What do you guys think of this method? Alternatively, you can make the base DC 10 or even 15 if you think it's too low, without changing the method to determine the DC.

Very Easy: 5
Easy: 10
Medium: 15
Hard: 20
Very Hard: 25
Nearly Impossible: 30

Now, do you think it is easy for a trained or untrained person, in a fantasy world, to increase their jumping distance? I do. Especially if they are using their dash action to pick up speed.

But even without the dash action, a trained adventurer needing a few more feet should be very easy. Even an untrained adventurer could pull that off with relatively easy success.

To keep things simple you could say if you want to go further the DC is equal to the number of feet you want to increase your jump by. Give a +5 to the DC if you didn't dash.

Of course there are typically options that bypass the need to jump. The fly spell is a big one but so can the find familiar spell, as you can get the familiar to take a noose and drop it over something (chimney, a well timed boulder, or whatever) so when you jump and fail you can just climb up the notted rope.

Basically, it comes down to two things.

1: How much time do you really want your players to spend getting across a hole/gap/chasm.

2: Do you want the chasm/gap/hole to be the memorable part of the game.

I would think that 1 would be "not long" and 2 to be "no".

[EvilAnagram]

Nice and easy, I like your approach :). Do you also make checks for 10 ft jumps then? Assuming the character has a Strength of 10 or higher.

Yup. My system expands the distance they can jump, but also increases the risk and makes spells and items that improve your ability to leap more attractive.

[Tanarii]

Basically, it comes down to two things.

1: How much time do you really want your players to spend getting across a hole/gap/chasm.

2: Do you want the chasm/gap/hole to be the memorable part of the game.

I would think that 1 would be "not long" and 2 to be "no".
One of the most talked about fights among my old-school regulars was in the 3e Sunless Citadel. It's something like a 30ft diameter room with the center 20 ft being a (very deep) hole, with a narrow lip around the edge. That means the spellcaster guarding the chief can nuke the party safely while the party tries to hack their way through a line of minions to get to them. The reason it's still talked about is Zane the monk decided he wasn't having this, and recklessly made a flaying leap across the hole, after which he completely locked the caster down.

Also because it was the first of many times the Tempus Cleric crit-killed a mini-boss with his axe, but I digress.