Jumping while Flying

[Kuu Lightwing]

So, the question is simple: Under what conditions I could use Jump (or Jump checks) skill while a character has Fly cast on her, or she uses some other means to fly?

Most common situations when that arises - is to use Leap Attack feat, or use Tiger Claw jump-maneuvers, such as Sudden Leap or Soaring Raptor Strike - which actually states the DC of the jump.

And of course what about Swooping Dragon Strike? Do I even need to make a Jump Check if I can fly?

Thoughts?

[DrMotives]

If anything, you might substitute jump checks for things that are normally tumble checks while airborne, while allowing tumble's sync bonus to apply. This isn't RAW by a long shot, but more a "rule of cool" application.

[Pleh]

Not RAW, but in my mind, jumping by definition requires pushing off of something. If you have physical wings, I could allow a jump check off the air alone, albeit at a circumstance penalty. If Peter Pan flying, you might need to "land" even if only momentarily. If you have a telekinetic style levitation, it's easy enough to make a telekinetic platform to kick off of.

[Darrin]

Thoughts?

There is no definitive answer for whether you can use Jump while flying.

By RAW, there is nothing in the rules that says that jumps are only restricted to movement modes where you are standing on a solid surface. This is an area of the rules where the designers most likely assumed that "common sense" would be obvious, while also writing a game that includes shapechanging fire-breathing ice monsters that can fly through solid stone while crafting quarterstaves out of thin air. So... RAW might not exactly be the best rule of thumb here.

[Mato]

The terminology is ambiguous since jump doesn't strictly mean moving from a solid surface and into the air (for example whales jump out of water). The rules expressly enable you to through since you can perform a jump check with any form of movement, including flight, but some people oppose this due to preconceived notions of the meaning of jump.

And those same people will also tell you that you can use sudden leap to perform a mid-air jump so take whatever they claim with a grain of salt.

[LordOfCain]

...a game that includes shapechanging fire-breathing ice monsters that can fly through solid stone while crafting quarterstaves out of thin air...
Why you gotta bring wizards into this?

[Sir Chuckles]

First, make a DC 120 Balance check to stand on a nearby cloud.
Then Jump.

[Kuu Lightwing]

So, as I see, the answer is simple - up to DM.

Okay, but question about swooping dragon strike is still interesting. It requires you to jump over the enemy, but if you can do that without jumping - by just flying, could you perform the maneuver without the check? :)

[Mr Adventurer]

I've always enjoyed the hangtime rules. Get a high enough check that your remaining movement doesn't cover your jump, and you have to wait until your turn comes up again before moving some more.

Get enough of a jump check with a low speed, and you can spend ages in-flight.

Under such circumstances, using Sudden Leap to 'double jump' makes as much sense as anything.

[Jay R]

This is an area of the rules where the designers most likely assumed that "common sense" would be obvious, while also writing a game that includes shapechanging fire-breathing ice monsters that can fly through solid stone while crafting quarterstaves out of thin air.

Oh, nicely said.

[Mato]

Oh, nicely said.But common sense isn't common and it's subjective to the people involved.

For example, Darrin is trying to use "common sense" as a reason to ignore the rules as obvious by his suggestion to ignore RAW. In any other thread he'd be called out for ignoring the rules in favor of his opinion but according to you the fallacy of appeal should carry because you like it. In all, that's a pretty unlikely event, no one agrees or likes anything on GitP because that's a sign of weakness or something :smallwink:

You seriously should check out my linked video. What's being argued has nothing to do with the rules by a pointless language debate which has no inherent value. For example, the passengers of flight 137 out of Washington experience a jarring run of turbulence and one passenger describes it to his fiancee as the plane was jumping in the air. Is his description accurate or not?

One person comes forth and argues if cannot be because he thinks jumping is continued movement after propulsion as stopped and the engines never turned off and comes forth claiming he jumped several times while watching a movie before he jumped out of his waterbed to turn it off and thinks the other guy is a grammar nazi. The first guy after hearing this thinks his long winded technical explanation compared to the other idiot's "slang" must mean he is correct and both of there will descend heart of darkness style into acts of brutality against each other. And while it might be entertaining to watch them all they are doing is wasting time. To settle the argument they need only to reach for an objective definition, like how the rules allow it and English accepts it but that's part of my "common sense" that as I just reestablished, isn't common and highly subjective.

So like the intelligent passenger of the plane I think my idea of following the rules is more correct than any other opinion and I'm currently sharpening my axe even through I'm too lazy to actually use it. Popcorn anyone? It goes great with that video in my signature that you should watch in full.