The Battle Jump thread to end all Battle Jump threads

[Jowgen]

In the course of my recent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554174-Modelling-Jump-skill-DC-in-3-dimensions)exploration of the Jump skill, I've come to be interested in the Battle Jump feat. And oh-boy is it a mess of rules. I've seen a couple of discussions on it, but none seem to have a satisfactory conclusion. So lets try again. Lets finish this. :smallcool:

You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent. For example, a ledge 10 feet above the floor of a cavern would suffice for jumping on a Medium-sized creature, while a ledge 15 feet high is required for a jumping on a Large creature. 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. If you hit, you can choose either to deal double damage with a melee weapon or natural attack or to attempt a trip attack. You are treated as one size category larger than normal if you try to trip your opponent with the battle jump. After you attack, you take falling damage as normal for the distance you jumped. You are entitled to a Jump check (DC 15) to take less damage, as if you had fallen 10 feet less than you actually did. If you fail this Jump check, you fall prone 5 feet from your opponent. [...]

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.

So where to begin unpacking this... Before any considerations of what does and does not qualify to trigger battle jump, the action economy issue needs addressing. Normally "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." Question is, how much does Battle Jump interact here, if at all. I see 2 options.

Option A: Battle Jump is its own mechanic that happens to count as a charge

Battle Jump does not mention any actions, just conditions and benefits. Any time a creature drops 5 ft of elevation relative to the target and makes an attack, it receives the benefit of Battle Jump and the attack counts as being part of a charge.

Under this reading, a creature can use its movement speeds to get into position (e.g. climb up a wall) and then drop, as well as perform multiple battle jumps in a round if they can gain extra movement upwards (e.g. Extreme Leap skill trick, Anklet of Translocation, etc.).

Option B: Battle Jump is a modified charge

A Battle Jump is just like any charge, except that the normal 10 ft of movement requirement is replaced by the drop in relative elevation requirement. It takes a full round action (or in the case of a partial charge standard action) to drop and attack. Under this reading, a creature has to already be at the right relative elevation before taking the full round action to execute the battle Jump charge.

Other problems with Battle Jump

1. What about Improved Trip, Improved Grab, Knockdown, Pounce and so forth? There are many abilities that allow some kind of follow up attack on a successful hit/charge, do those benefit from the boosts provided by battle jump? IF you trip with a battle jump, does the subsequent improved trip attack deal double damage? Lets say you choose to battle jump, attack and trigger knockdown, do you then counts as larger for the trip? Same question for everything.

2. You land/take falling damage after the attack is made, so does the attack resolve while you're in the air above the opponent? If we go with Option B, then this has to be the case, since the rule about attacking from the closes square from which you threaten are still in effect. This again ties into to the issue of follow-up triggers, potentially creating a scenario where you jump, attack while 5 ft in the air, and then use Pounce to make X number of attacks while still mid free fall. Which is a seriously cool image to be fair.

3. What about reach? A large creature dropping from 5 ft above a medium creature is already threatening before they drop, so if we go with Option B then this just doesn't work. The creature would have to drop from a relative height of 5 ft plus its reach.

4. What about Dive Attacks? If you are flying by means other than FLy or Levitate, you can Battle Jump, but you also have the option of a Dive Attack charge, which requires 30 ft of total movementent including 10 ft down. The requirements are not exclusive. So either these overlap to a point where Battle Jump is notably less useful to flyers, or they can combine for x3 damage. I have no strong feeling about this.

5. What about Jump? Most threads on this feat deal with combining it with Leap Attack, so this is a known question. A DC 40 Jump check lets you cover 40 ft in horizontal distance while also bringing you to an elevation of 10 ft. If we go with Option B, this does not allow for a Battle Jump, because you need to already be at the right elevation before you begin the charge. With Option A, I think this works as Battle Jump does not state that the drop needs to be straight down, so down at an angle should work. Considering it's called Battle Jump, I kinda feel like it should.


I am sure there are more issues, but this should do for now. So, where do you stand?

[Doctor Awkward]

Option A: Battle Jump is its own mechanic that happens to count as a charge

Battle Jump does not mention any actions, just conditions and benefits. Any time a creature drops 5 ft of elevation relative to the target and makes an attack, it receives the benefit of Battle Jump and the attack counts as being part of a charge.

Under this reading, a creature can use its movement speeds to get into position (e.g. climb up a wall) and then drop, as well as perform multiple battle jumps in a round if they can gain extra movement upwards (e.g. Extreme Leap skill trick, Anklet of Translocation, etc.).
This is the ruling my table uses, though we also throw in a little from column B.
I was the first person to play a character with Battle Jump, and I did so when one of my regular group wanted to run a Final Fantasy themed game. I came to him with the character build and explicitly referred to Battle Jump as a way to enable a dragoon's Jump. He loved it, and ruled that so long as my Jump check could clear the necessary 10 ft above the target, without exceeding my movement for the round, I could charge it on the way back down.


Option B: Battle Jump is a modified charge

A Battle Jump is just like any charge, except that the normal 10 ft of movement requirement is replaced by the drop in relative elevation requirement. It takes a full round action (or in the case of a partial charge standard action) to drop and attack. Under this reading, a creature has to already be at the right relative elevation before taking the full round action to execute the battle Jump charge.

This is likely the most correct interpretation, considering the wording and probable intent of the authors.
While certainly less open to abuse, it is also arguably less fun for the player.


1. What about Improved Trip, Improved Grab, Knockdown, Pounce and so forth? There are many abilities that allow some kind of follow up attack on a successful hit/charge, do those benefit from the boosts provided by battle jump? IF you trip with a battle jump, does the subsequent improved trip attack deal double damage? Lets say you choose to battle jump, attack and trigger knockdown, do you then counts as larger for the trip? Same question for everything.

Battle Jump is a charge lists three four very specific actions as a result of using it:
You can deal double damage with a melee weapon,
OR deal double damage with a natural weapon,
OR, you can make a trip attempt and count as one category larger,
OR, you can make a grapple attempt and count as one category larger for that first check.

That's it.

By the text there are no other combat maneuvers you can use with Battle Jump. Should you choose to make a trip attempt, Improved Trip would modify it just as it does any other trip attempt. But since you chose to do that instead of doing double damage, you would resolve that attempt as normal.


2. You land/take falling damage after the attack is made, so does the attack resolve while you're in the air above the opponent?
Not necessarily.
The feat is only instructing you on the order in which you resolve its effects. It has nothing to say on exactly when the attack occurs. It's entirely possible that you strike your opponent precisely as you hit the ground, and you and your opponent would take your respective damage at the same time (which would be impossible to resolve mechanically, hence the order mandated by the feat). As the feat is silent on the precise nature of the attack, it's entirely up to the DM to decide when the attack occurs.

While one DM could take it literally (you are required only to be at least 5 feat above your opponent, can land anywhere that you still threaten him, and the feat works fine), while another could take it at face value (you are not only required to be at least 5 five above your opponent but must land on top of him as the text suggests).


3. What about reach? A large creature dropping from 5 ft above a medium creature is already threatening before they drop, so if we go with Option B then this just doesn't work. The creature would have to drop from a relative height of 5 ft plus its reach.
As above, it depends on the DM. Battle Jump does not obviate any of the rules regarding reach weapons. So while one DM could say it works just fine if you land 10 feet away, another could require you that much more additional height before you get the benefit.


4. What about Dive Attacks? If you are flying by means other than FLy or Levitate, you can Battle Jump, but you also have the option of a Dive Attack charge, which requires 30 ft of total movementent including 10 ft down. The requirements are not exclusive. So either these overlap to a point where Battle Jump is notably less useful to flyers, or they can combine for x3 damage. I have no strong feeling about this.
Incorrect.
Battle Jump stipulates Fly or Levitate spells or effects. Flying with natural flight is an effect that causes one to be flying. You are either flying or hurling yourself in free-fall at your opponent. They are mutually exclusive.


5. What about Jump? Most threads on this feat deal with combining it with Leap Attack, so this is a known question. A DC 40 Jump check lets you cover 40 ft in horizontal distance while also bringing you to an elevation of 10 ft. If we go with Option B, this does not allow for a Battle Jump, because you need to already be at the right elevation before you begin the charge. With Option A, I think this works as Battle Jump does not state that the drop needs to be straight down, so down at an angle should work. Considering it's called Battle Jump, I kinda feel like it should.
In the strictest possible interpretation of the Leap Attack feat, it does not interact with Battle Jump at all, since Leap Attack states "this attack must follow all the normal rules for using the Jump skill and for making a charge", and Battle Jump uses none of these "normal rules" in question.

Even ignoring such a rules-lawyered stipulation, it is still up to the DM if they interact since Leap Attack requires you to end your movement in order to gain it's benefits. If your DM decides the attack occurs in the air before you are finished moving, then you could not use Leap Attack in conjunction with Battle Jump.


I am sure there are more issues, but this should do for now. So, where do you stand?
There will never be a single consensus for how this feat functions across all tables. There is far too much it leaves open to personal interpretation. The answer when making a Battle Jump build will always be, "Ask your DM."

[Jowgen]

This is the ruling my table uses, though we also throw in a little from column B.
I was the first person to play a character with Battle Jump, and I did so when one of my regular group wanted to run a Final Fantasy themed game. I came to him with the character build and explicitly referred to Battle Jump as a way to enable a dragoon's Jump. He loved it, and ruled that so long as my Jump check could clear the necessary 10 ft above the target, without exceeding my movement for the round, I could charge it on the way back down.

Not pure RAW, but certainly a good way to handle it considering the ambiguities involved.


This is likely the most correct interpretation, considering the wording and probable intent of the authors. While certainly less open to abuse, it is also arguably less fun for the player.

I don't think either option is strictly more faithful to the almighty RAW than the other, but Option B does cramp the proverbial style quite a bit. It also raises more issues, like the problem with reach, which for example makes the feat impossible to use once you get to something with a reach of 30.


Battle Jump is a charge lists three very specific actions as a result of using it:
You can deal double damage with a melee weapon,
OR deal double damage with a natural weapon,
OR, you can make a trip attempt and count as one category larger,
OR, you can make a grapple attempt and count as one category larger for that first check.

That's it.

By the text there are no other combat maneuvers you can use with Battle Jump. Should you choose to make a trip attempt, Improved Trip would modify it just as it does any other trip attempt. But since you chose to do that instead of doing double damage, you would resolve that attempt as normal.

I think this is generally correct, but do feel that there are some grey areas. The double damage clearly only applies on the first hit, so Pounce is out. The damage from Knockdown is boosted by battle jump, so it could be argued that the granted free action trip qualifies as "trip your opponent with the battle jump" for extra effective size. Conversely, I don't see the follow up from improved trip as getting double damage, same reason as Pounce. Improved Grab... the language on grapple is less open than that for trip, so I'm leaning to no on that one.



The feat is only instructing you on the order in which you resolve its effects. It has nothing to say on exactly when the attack occurs. It's entirely possible that you strike your opponent precisely as you hit the ground, and you and your opponent would take your respective damage at the same time (which would be impossible to resolve mechanically, hence the order mandated by the feat). As the feat is silent on the precise nature of the attack, it's entirely up to the DM to decide when the attack occurs.

True, though there is still the issue that under Option B one needs to meet the other requirements of a charge, which includes attacking from the closest square out of which one threatens, which would be the mid-air square. Not an issue with Option A, as that one lets you finish dropping before the other stuff, but still.


Incorrect.
Battle Jump stipulates Fly or Levitate spells or effects. Flying with natural flight is an effect that causes one to be flying. You are either flying or hurling yourself in free-fall at your opponent. They are mutually exclusive.

Hmmm... a naturally flying creature can choose to free fall, and I am not sure I can agree that having a fly speed is an "effect" by default, though I am inclined to agree with you purely on account of this obviating the issue.


In the strictest possible interpretation of the Leap Attack feat, it does not interact with Battle Jump at all, since Leap Attack states "this attack must follow all the normal rules for using the Jump skill and for making a charge", and Battle Jump uses none of these "normal rules" in question.

Even ignoring such a rules-lawyered stipulation, it is still up to the DM if they interact since Leap Attack requires you to end your movement in order to gain it's benefits. If your DM decides the attack occurs in the air before you are finished moving, then you could not use Leap Attack in conjunction with Battle Jump.

I agree completely. Even if one goes with Option A and uses Jump, you stop using a normal charge the moment Battle Jump triggers, which is considered a charge but does not follow the normal rules.


There will never be a single consensus for how this feat functions across all tables. There is far too much it leaves open to personal interpretation. The answer when making a Battle Jump build will always be, "Ask your DM."

You're probably right, but luckily I only set out to create the last Battle Jump thread ever needed for rule queries on here. A definitive answer is not required for that, so long as all relevant issues are explored. :smallcool:

[Darrin]

I was all set to sit down and write a long justification on how Battle Jump can be used on any action that allows a "Jumping Down" skill check via the Jump Skill, but it occurred to me that a Charge is a full-round action that includes movement, so... I think my argument against "it must be a full-round action" kinda falls apart.

However, there is another issue that you failed to discuss... who can legally take the Battle Jump feat? Under the 3.0 rules, anyone who put two ranks in Knowledge: Local (Taer region) could take Battle Jump, but these rules changed in the 3.5 PGtF. The rules for regional feats are a little more restrictive under these rules. Or rather, under 3.0, any PC with the correct skill ranks in Knowledge: Local could take additional regional feats, but under 3.5 you're only allowed one single regional feat at 1st level. And the only humanoid race commonly found in the Taer region are... not exactly a common pick for player character races. Taers are medium-sized giants with 2 racial HD and LA +1... I guess that's "playable" but I've never seen anyone use them for any reason, PC/NPC or otherwise. According to PGtF p. 30, they are the only subrace that can pick Battle Jump as a regional feat.

If your PC is not actually a taer, you *can* select the Icerim Mountains as your home region, but you need DM approval to get Battle Jump:



You should check with your Dungeon Master before you assign your character a region that doesn't fit his subrace. Doing so is not against the rules; indeed, despite the prevalence of certain races in certain areas, Faerun is a diverse land with many well-integrated cities and kingdoms. It would not be unreasonable, for example, for a gold dwarf character to have the human region of Cormyr as his native region. However, such an unusual origin probably deserves some explanation in your character’s backstory.

[Jowgen]

I was all set to sit down and write a long justification on how Battle Jump can be used on any action that allows a "Jumping Down" skill check via the Jump Skill, but it occurred to me that a Charge is a full-round action that includes movement, so... I think my argument against "it must be a full-round action" kinda falls apart.

Well, if you go with Option A then Battle Jump is only considered a charge while actually being a whole different thing. It doesn't mention any of the usual elements of a charge, be it move 10 ft in a straight line, -2 AC penalty, +2 attack, or the aforementioned action requirement. While I don't think either option is strictly more RAW-faithful, considering it a modified charge does raise a lot of questions and a few dysfunctional cases that make me favour Option A for practice.


However, there is another issue that you failed to discuss... who can legally take the Battle Jump feat? Under the 3.0 rules, anyone who put two ranks in Knowledge: Local (Taer region) could take Battle Jump, but these rules changed in the 3.5 PGtF. The rules for regional feats are a little more restrictive under these rules. Or rather, under 3.0, any PC with the correct skill ranks in Knowledge: Local could take additional regional feats, but under 3.5 you're only allowed one single regional feat at 1st level. And the only humanoid race commonly found in the Taer region are... not exactly a common pick for player character races. Taers are medium-sized giants with 2 racial HD and LA +1... I guess that's "playable" but I've never seen anyone use them for any reason, PC/NPC or otherwise. According to PGtF p. 30, they are the only subrace that can pick Battle Jump as a regional feat.

If your PC is not actually a taer, you *can* select the Icerim Mountains as your home region, but you need DM approval to get Battle Jump:

I was indeed remiss in not addressing this, thank you for bringing it up. Now, Heironeous forbid regional restrictions are actually in play... I don't see the racial requirement as being big issue. Selecting the Icerim Mountains for a creature that isn't of the "recommended subrace" is explicitly not against the rules, like you said. I think the text simply emphasises the universal rule that a DM has to approve this choice, like he has to approve with any other. It's the same caveat that comes attached to any alternative class feature selection. It just has to make some degree of sense. Like, Goliath would be a perfect fluff fit and a decent option on most builds I can see with this.

Side notes: Battle Jump is a fighter feat, so if one really wanted to go there, Martial Monk would be an option.

[Darrin]

It looks to me like everything boils down to answering one question: what kind of action type is required for Battle Jump? Everything else I think we can nail down into specifics from there.

Option A could be restated as: "Any action that results in jumping down, dropping down, or falling down from an opponent from above can be used to trigger Battle Jump." This opens the door on multiple Battle Jumps per turn, such as the Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink Trifecta, but is so much more interesting that the alternative.

Option B defines Battle Jump as a variation of the Charge action and thus a full-round action. This isn't nearly as exciting, and somewhat harder to set up, but at least is still functionally possible.

The text in the feat description doesn't address the action required in any meaningful way, so it pretty much all boils down to a DM's Call. I suppose we could write an definitive guide to Option A and Option B, and then advise people to consult their DM on which option to use.

Some other issues we might want to address:


Does Roof-Jumper (Cityscape) require the same action type as Battle Jump? Can they be combined into the same action?

Mantis Leap (Sword & Fist) is another way to turn a Jump check into a Charge action, although the "Monk 7th" requirement is a little annoying. There may be similar issues with Roof-Jumper, such as, can they be combined?

Do we want to tackle falling object damage as one of the consequences of using Battle Jump? Do we want to define that as unavoidable, or invoke the DC 15 Ref save from the Aerial Bombardment rules in Heroes of Battle?

[Jowgen]

It looks to me like everything boils down to answering one question: what kind of action type is required for Battle Jump? Everything else I think we can nail down into specifics from there.

Option A could be restated as: "Any action that results in jumping down, dropping down, or falling down from an opponent from above can be used to trigger Battle Jump." This opens the door on multiple Battle Jumps per turn, such as the Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink Trifecta, but is so much more interesting that the alternative.

Option B defines Battle Jump as a variation of the Charge action and thus a full-round action. This isn't nearly as exciting, and somewhat harder to set up, but at least is still functionally possible.

The text in the feat description doesn't address the action required in any meaningful way, so it pretty much all boils down to a DM's Call. I suppose we could write an definitive guide to Option A and Option B, and then advise people to consult their DM on which option to use.

Well, with option A Battle Jump does in itself not require an action. If you attack, trip or grapple following a drop of 5+ ft in relative distance, then that attack, trip or grapple gains the specified benefits. The actions is simply what it cost to get the drop and make the attack. And the more I think about option B, the more questions it raises...

Okay, I think I am ready to take a stand on this issue. Been split so far, but made up my mind now. The first line reads "You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent", and other than the Normal-section clarification that this kind of drop normally isn't "considered a charge", the charge rules are never referenced.

I argue that "execute a charge by simply dropping[...]" means that the act of dropping 5 ft simply results in your subsequent attack counting as being made at the end of a charge. You don't get the benefits or penalties of a charge and conversely don't have to meet the normal conditions. You only get the benefits and penalties specified in the feat text. The only actual connection Battle Jump has to charging is is considered one for the purpose of effects that trigger off charging.

I think this reading adheres the best to the "stuff only does what is says it does" paradigm, while the option B reading makes assumptions about you getting stuff that isn't specified (i.e. +2 Atk) while creating dysfunctions (i.e. "attack from nearest square", "reach while dropping", etc.).



Does Roof-Jumper (Cityscape) require the same action type as Battle Jump? Can they be combined into the same action?

Mantis Leap (Sword & Fist) is another way to turn a Jump check into a Charge action, although the "Monk 7th" requirement is a little annoying. There may be similar issues with Roof-Jumper, such as, can they be combined?

Do we want to tackle falling object damage as one of the consequences of using Battle Jump? Do we want to define that as unavoidable, or invoke the DC 15 Ref save from the Aerial Bombardment rules in Heroes of Battle?


Roof-Jumper "qualifies as a charge attack, with all relevant bonuses and penalties", but doesn't specify that the same conditions must be met. So it's closer to a regular charge than Battle-Jump is, in that some charge mechanics are specified as applying (the comparative absence of this in Battle Jump is part of what helped me make up my mind there), but it is still it's own mechanic. So like Battle Jump it's not a specific action, but a benefit that applies if the conditions are met prior to the attack. So I think the 2 can be combined, though the difference in height requirement might impact practicality.

Mantis Leap is weird. It's written a bit backwards, making it read like the charge is part of the jump, rather than the jump being part of the charge. You are clearly meant to make a normal charge, but if you succeed on the Jump (which I assume needs to cover the whole distance, again badly written) then you get the extra damage on this charge, which follows all the charge rules.

For falling object damage, I think the first question is whether a DM even allows you to use Battle Jump when falling into an enemy's square. If it's ruled that you make the attack while airborne, then this works, but if you need to land first then stuff gets weird. You can't end your movement in an enemy square, if you accidentally do you get moved to the nearest legal square. I think one of the rules of the game or sage articles addressed what happens when you fall on top of an enemy, but a quick search turned up nothing...

[Doctor Awkward]

It looks to me like everything boils down to answering one question: what kind of action type is required for Battle Jump?


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

By any reasonable interpretation, using Battle Jump is the same action as doing a regular charge would be: a full-round action.

The text of Battle Jump does not change anything about the rules for a charge except the required movement beforehand-- from a minimum of 10 ft. in a straight horizontal line to a minimum of 5 ft. in a vertical line from overhead.

Falling might be a move action, but charging is not. Battle Jump is explicitly executing a charge.

[Jowgen]

By any reasonable interpretation, using Battle Jump is the same action as doing a regular charge would be: a full-round action.

The text of Battle Jump does not change anything about the rules for a charge except the required movement beforehand-- from a minimum of 10 ft. in a straight horizontal line to a minimum of 5 ft. in a vertical line from overhead.

Falling might be a move action, but charging is not. Battle Jump is explicitly executing a charge.

Issue is that other than being "considered" a charge, the whole mechanic of Battle Jump has nothing in common with charging.

If you try to mash the two together, you need to get around all of the following:

- What is the movement speed cost of dropping (inc. the double movement benefit of charging)?
- What is the "closest space from which you can attack" in a drop?
- If you have extra reach, does this get added onto the 5 ft of minimum drop distance?
- If you have to move in a straight line and can't take a 5 ft step, how can you jump down from a ledge in the first place?
- Do you get +2 Atk and -2 AC despite the feat text not mentioning it?

[Doctor Awkward]

Battle Jump is not just "considered" a charge. You are explicitly executing a charge. The rules on charging are very specific. The only thing Battle Jump changes is the movement beforehand.

If it was meant to change anything else about the charge action, it would say so.

[Darrin]

By any reasonable interpretation, using Battle Jump is the same action as doing a regular charge would be: a full-round action.


That's one of the wonderful things about online forums. I can read the same text and come to the very reasonable interpretation that Battle Jump allows you to execute a charge "by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent". In my mind, any action that results in dropping down from above your opponent can trigger a charge with Battle Jump.

Likewise, Battle Jump doesn't mention that you get the benefits of a charge... but I have a hard time imagining that you don't get +2 attack/-2 AC/Pounce/etc. because if you don't, then why bother calling it a charge at all? If you don't get the benefits of treating it as a charge, then there's absolutely no reason to mention that it's a charge.

[Jowgen]

Likewise, Battle Jump doesn't mention that you get the benefits of a charge... but I have a hard time imagining that you don't get +2 attack/-2 AC/Pounce/etc. because if you don't, then why bother calling it a charge at all? If you don't get the benefits of treating it as a charge, then there's absolutely no reason to mention that it's a charge.

It being considered a charge has a whole bunch of ramifications in and of itself. It lets it work with Pounce, Lances and other assorted items, spells and abilities that trigger off charging. Conversely, setting against a charge lets you hit a battle jumper, and a character who is fatigued or exhausted can't Battle Jump. That's just for starters.

Also, Valorous is in the same book and they probably wanted it to work with that.

[Uncle Pine]

First of all, I'd like to thank you Jowgen as all your optimization threads devoted to clarify and build upon small pieces RAW are always interesting and a font of inspiration for me to theorycraft the craziest characters (for example Loose Cannon Jigwen, a halfling swordsage with a stone spitter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?555207-Making-sense-of-and-optimising-the-Stone-Spitter) grafted onto his abdomen whose beard is always on fire, just in case he needs to light a match).

Now, onto the problem at hand:

So where to begin unpacking this... Before any considerations of what does and does not qualify to trigger battle jump, the action economy issue needs addressing. Normally "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." Question is, how much does Battle Jump interact here, if at all. I see 2 options.

Option A: Battle Jump is its own mechanic that happens to count as a charge

Battle Jump does not mention any actions, just conditions and benefits. Any time a creature drops 5 ft of elevation relative to the target and makes an attack, it receives the benefit of Battle Jump and the attack counts as being part of a charge.

Under this reading, a creature can use its movement speeds to get into position (e.g. climb up a wall) and then drop, as well as perform multiple battle jumps in a round if they can gain extra movement upwards (e.g. Extreme Leap skill trick, Anklet of Translocation, etc.).
Battle Jump tells us three things: that by adhering to [a set of new conditions different from the normal ones]1 you get to [execute a charge]2 and [gain additional benefits]3. 1 is used in this case in place of the normal set up for a charge, that is moving up to twice your movement in a straight line through unhindered terrain to the closest space from which you can attack an opponent. 2 is never overridden by the feat and as such still applies, but you also get 3 when you use Battle Jump.

1 Dropping from a height between 5- and 30-ft. above your opponent.
2 You may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn. A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength check made to bull rush an opponent.
3 If you hit, [Deal double damage with a melee weapon] OR [Deal double damage with a natural weapon] OR [Attempt a trip attack with a size bonus] OR [Attempt to begin a grapple with a size bonus].


Option B: Battle Jump is a modified charge

A Battle Jump is just like any charge, except that the normal 10 ft of movement requirement is replaced by the drop in relative elevation requirement. It takes a full round action (or in the case of a partial charge standard action) to drop and attack. Under this reading, a creature has to already be at the right relative elevation before taking the full round action to execute the battle Jump charge.
The problem I have with this interpretation is that it completely disregard the fact dropping is a rather specific English term meaning "descending from above" and also used quite liberally when describing movement in other parts of the game: you can drop using the Jump skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm), ceilings (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#cr9Traps) or other objects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#fallingObjects) can drop on you, darkmantles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/darkmantle.htm) drop on you to attempt to beat you up. In other words, "dropping" isn't a mechanical term and should therefore be interpreted as a description of part of a movement: if the author of the feat wanted it to require a special action he or she would've spelled it out.
See 1 above.


Other problems with Battle Jump

1. What about Improved Trip, Improved Grab, Knockdown, Pounce and so forth? There are many abilities that allow some kind of follow up attack on a successful hit/charge, do those benefit from the boosts provided by battle jump? IF you trip with a battle jump, does the subsequent improved trip attack deal double damage? Lets say you choose to battle jump, attack and trigger knockdown, do you then counts as larger for the trip? Same question for everything.

Improved Trip: this is actually trickier than I expected, as 3 would read "If you hit, attempt a trip attack with a size bonus and if you trip the opponent, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt." Since you could've dealt double damage or begin a grapple with the size bonus on a Battle Jump if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt, you would be able to do either of those.
Improved Grab: 3 would read "If you hit, deal double damage with a natural weapon and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity." You didn't select [Attempt to begin a grapple with a size bonus] as a bonus, so the grapple check is made as normal for your size.
Knock-Down: same as Improved Grab, only you need to also deal at least 10 damage with your (doubled) normal attack. Remember you also have a (doubled) +2 damage bonus from Battle Jump being a charge, so getting to 10 shouldn't be difficult.
Pounce: pounce effectively repeats 3 as many times as you have attacks, possibly dealing double damage with all of them (or allowing several trip/grapple attempts, if you so choose). Note that 3 says "if you hit", not "the first time you hit".



2. You land/take falling damage after the attack is made, so does the attack resolve while you're in the air above the opponent? If we go with Option B, then this has to be the case, since the rule about attacking from the closes square from which you threaten are still in effect. This again ties into to the issue of follow-up triggers, potentially creating a scenario where you jump, attack while 5 ft in the air, and then use Pounce to make X number of attacks while still mid free fall. Which is a seriously cool image to be fair.

3. What about reach? A large creature dropping from 5 ft above a medium creature is already threatening before they drop, so if we go with Option B then this just doesn't work. The creature would have to drop from a relative height of 5 ft plus its reach.
Option B is a mess.

And yes, the attack is resolved while you're still in the air, likely taking AoO from opponents armed with reach weapons and/or Large or larger.


4. What about Dive Attacks? If you are flying by means other than FLy or Levitate, you can Battle Jump, but you also have the option of a Dive Attack charge, which requires 30 ft of total movementent including 10 ft down. The requirements are not exclusive. So either these overlap to a point where Battle Jump is notably less useful to flyers, or they can combine for x3 damage. I have no strong feeling about this.
Hurling a giant stone from a high ground or simply dropping it on an opponent don't have strictly exclusive requirements: in both cases the stone goes from your hands to (hopefully) the head of your targets. However, according to the rules, the two attempts are handled in different ways. Dive attacks and battle jump follow different rules, so a creature with access to both can pick either option as it sees fit. For what it matters, said creature also has the third option of attempting a normal, non-diving, non-battle jumping charge.
I also agree with the fact a flying creature would need to drop in free fall to make use of Battle Jump.


5. What about Jump? Most threads on this feat deal with combining it with Leap Attack, so this is a known question. A DC 40 Jump check lets you cover 40 ft in horizontal distance while also bringing you to an elevation of 10 ft. If we go with Option B, this does not allow for a Battle Jump, because you need to already be at the right elevation before you begin the charge. With Option A, I think this works as Battle Jump does not state that the drop needs to be straight down, so down at an angle should work. Considering it's called Battle Jump, I kinda feel like it should.

Option B is a mess.
As long as the square you end your jump from Leap Attack is the same from which you launch your Battle Jump and regargless of the distance traveled horizontally you reached a height 10 ft. higher than your opponent from which you then descended on it, I see no problems in combining the two feats. To clarify, I don't believe you can use Leap Attack together with Battle Jump if you jump over you opponent and end up in a square adjacent to it: for the combination to work, you must finish your movement right above your opponent and then take damage as normal for Battle Jump (unless you reduce it with a Jump check).
While we're on the topic, here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat) are the general rules about height.


Some other issues we might want to address:


Does Roof-Jumper (Cityscape) require the same action type as Battle Jump? Can they be combined into the same action?

Mantis Leap (Sword & Fist) is another way to turn a Jump check into a Charge action, although the "Monk 7th" requirement is a little annoying. There may be similar issues with Roof-Jumper, such as, can they be combined?

Do we want to tackle falling object damage as one of the consequences of using Battle Jump? Do we want to define that as unavoidable, or invoke the DC 15 Ref save from the Aerial Bombardment rules in Heroes of Battle?

I believe the "Death from Above" maneuver of Roof-Jumper and Battle Jump can be combined without problems as long as you drop between 20- and 30-ft. This makes setting up the combination sketchy at best, but it's definitely possible.

Mantis Leap is a bad feat which is also horribly worded. It's possible the two may be combined, but the effort of deciding how the two interact by RAW is definitely more vexing than that of simply picking a different feat that does the same thing but better. Martial Study (Sudden Leap) is a good starting point.

Falling object damage applied to creature A falling on top of creature B is a bit of a grey area. At my tables we always used it, but it's probably a houserule. I'd love to discover that there's an actual rule on the matter somewhere, but unfortunately I don't think that's the case. Until such a rule is found, I believe the issue is worth spelling out for the sake of it being addressed by each group their own way, although we could definitely list the various possible interpretations.


Battle Jump is not just "considered" a charge. You are explicitly executing a charge. The rules on charging are very specific. The only thing Battle Jump changes is the movement beforehand.

If it was meant to change anything else about the charge action, it would say so.
The problem is the feat does exactly that: saying that you get to charge using a different trigger than normal. See 1, or here:

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

[Doctor Awkward]

That's one of the wonderful things about online forums. I can read the same text and come to the very reasonable interpretation that Battle Jump allows you to execute a charge "by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent". In my mind, any action that results in dropping down from above your opponent can trigger a charge with Battle Jump.

Likewise, Battle Jump doesn't mention that you get the benefits of a charge... but I have a hard time imagining that you don't get +2 attack/-2 AC/Pounce/etc. because if you don't, then why bother calling it a charge at all? If you don't get the benefits of treating it as a charge, then there's absolutely no reason to mention that it's a charge.


The problem is the feat does exactly that: saying that you get to charge using a different trigger than normal.

Only if you take that first sentence out of context and consider it by itself.
The rules text for the feat is the entire text of the feat, not just the part that supports your conclusion.

As I have repeatedly stated, and as is contrary to the popular opinion on these forums, intent matters when interpreting rules text. And a lack of specificity in precision in the rules should never be treated as license to ignore obvious intent.

D&D is an exception-based rules system. There rules of the game define general truths, and then abilities and feats list exceptions to those rules as needed. The purpose of including the "Normal" section in feat description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions) is to remind you of "what a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing." It's purpose is to more completely describe the part of the rules that the feat is changing when creating its exception.

As is noted in the Normal section of Battle Jump, "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." Thus the only two aspects of the Charge action that are being changed by Battle Jump are a) what comes under "Movement During a Charge":

You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.
...So you must still move before your attack, except instead of 10 feet forward in a straight line, you can now drop from a height of at least 5 feet above your target.

And b) what you can do when "Attacking on a Charge":

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength check made to bull rush an opponent.

Bear in mind you were never forbidden from trying to trip or grapple after a charge, as both of those are acceptable replacements for a melee attack roll. As is bull rush. Charging simply gives you a bonus to it.
Should you choose to battle jump, you now have additional benefits for tripping or grappling, and you do extra damage on a successful regular melee attack (again, as is noted by the Normal entry of the Battle Jump feat).

[ExLibrisMortis]

My super-stupid-precise reading of "You can execute a charge by simply dropping from a height of at least 5 feet above your opponent" is as follows: you can execute the "charge" action whenever condition X is met (instead of the typical condition Y), with X = "drop five feet" and Y = "use a full-round action". That is, every time you drop, you can execute an entirely unrelated full-round charge with the benefits of Battle Jump; the drop replaces the usual action cost (although usually, dropping involves using movement anyway). If you don't drop to at least 10' above the Battle Jump target, you can't also charge the same creature that you're dropping on to (because it's too close for you to charge), but otherwise, sure, no problem. This reading is so incredibly stupid that it should be banned, but for what it's worth, I think that's what it actually says.


In actual play, I'd allow the benefits of Battle Jump to apply to any charge that ends with 5' of downward movement onto the enemy, regardless of the length of the charge (so 5' charges (diagonally) down are acceptable). Leap Attack charges with at least 10' of air would meet that requirement, too (for a Medium target).

(1) The feat is written without Pounce in mind, which seems to happen a lot when it comes to charging. I think the idea is your single charge attack is either doubled, or replaced by a Trip with a +4 bonus (that doesn't apply to Colossal creatures). In the case of Pounce, I'd say the full attack replaces the single attack, but gains the same benefit: the damage is doubled (on all attacks), or the entire full attack can be replaced by a Trip (yes, it's a bad deal). Follow-up attacks to Improved Trip are treated as part of the original full attack, because the feat specifies "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt".

(2) Yes, you attack while in the air, in the square above your opponent, and the attacks resolve before you move any further due to gravity. That means you can't use any Stone Dragon maneuvers while up there, in case you wanted to.

(3) A charge requires that you move to the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent". I think this means "closest space to you", for starters, but I'm not sure how to continue. It would either be "[...] from which you can attack your opponent with the attack that you want to charge with", or "[...] from which you can attack your opponent with [at least one of]/[your choice of one of] the eligible attacks you have available. That is, it isn't clear to me whether you must declare the attack you're charging with ahead of time, and whether you can decide to change the square you charge to mid-charge, as long as you have a weapon available that can attack your target from your destination square. Actually, can you decide to change your charge into a run halfway through?

Let's say you were simultaneously carrying a pike, longspear and shortspear (you're an Obah-Blessed athach, you have five arms). Can you declare that you charge with your shortspear, move to a square 10' from your enemy, activate the Short Haft feat, and then attack with your longspear? In other words, can you avoid the "closest space" requirement by carrying a shorter weapon?

For the same athach, if you do not have to declare the weapon you charge with, are you required to charge with the longest (i.e. having the longest reach) weapon you have? If you charge, are you required to use your pike's reach to determine the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent", leaving you with no option to use that weapon to attack with, as your longspear and shortspear simply cannot reach your target?

Even worse, can you fail a charge by declaring it with a pike, getting disarmed mid-charge, and ending up too far from your opponent? Or the reverse, where you charge with a shortspear and get disarmed, leaving you too close to attack with longspear and pike (unarmed strikes remain an option, but they tend to suck if you're not specialized for them)?

(N.B. These problems also arise from the "closest space to your opponent" interpretation, just in reverse.)

In actual gameplay, I'd go with the first option; I'd say you have to declare the weapon you're charging with. It seems sensible to me that the way you move also depends on the weapon you're using; the approach with a shorter weapon is going to be different than the charge with a pike. However, I'd allow the chosen weapon to be changed at any point during the charge (conditions of the target square permitting, of course). I'd also enforce reach restrictions on Battle Jump charges; if you are using a pike, you can jump down from 5' up, but you'll have to make an unarmed strike to attack (which could be bad if you don't have IUS).

4) If the requirements for a Battle Jump and dive attack are met at the same time, both of their respective effects apply. I am not 100% sure whether you can decide to start falling mid-flight; if the diving charge meets your minimum forward speed requirement, you might not be able to fall. I would allow it, though; I think you can dive 25' straight down from a height of 35', and then fall for another 5', completing the requirements for a diving Battle Jump charge. You'd take falling damage for the final 10' only. Essentially, it's a dive attack where you completely sacrifice your ability to recover for the ability to deal greater damage.

[Uncle Pine]

Only if you take that first sentence out of context and consider it by itself.
The rules text for the feat is the entire text of the feat, not just the part that supports your conclusion.

As I have repeatedly stated, and as is contrary to the popular opinion on these forums, intent matters when interpreting rules text. And a lack of specificity in precision in the rules should never be treated as license to ignore obvious intent.

D&D is an exception-based rules system. There rules of the game define general truths, and then abilities and feats list exceptions to those rules as needed. The purpose of including the "Normal" section in feat description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions) is to remind you of "what a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing." It's purpose is to more completely describe the part of the rules that the feat is changing when creating its exception.

As is noted in the Normal section of Battle Jump, "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." Thus the only two aspects of the Charge action that are being changed by Battle Jump are a) what comes under "Movement During a Charge":

...So you must still move before your attack, except instead of 10 feet forward in a straight line, you can now drop from a height of at least 5 feet above your target.

And b) what you can do when "Attacking on a Charge":


Bear in mind you were never forbidden from trying to trip or grapple after a charge, as both of those are acceptable replacements for a melee attack roll. As is bull rush. Charging simply gives you a bonus to it.
Should you choose to battle jump, you now have additional benefits for tripping or grappling, and you do extra damage on a successful regular melee attack (again, as is noted by the Normal entry of the Battle Jump feat).

We are actually reading the feat in pretty much the same way, albeit reaching different conclusions: I too see the "Normal" section and replace the "Movement during a charge" section of the charge special attack with 1, but since moving up to double your land speed and dropping on an opponent are two very distinct actions in d&d and you get to replace the former with the latter I also read it as requiring the same action you need to drop on an opponent, which is what you're doing, instead of a completely different action you are not executing because you have a feat that lets you avoid it.
Again, the "Normal" section details what happens when you use the normal action you'd need to drop on an opponent, and say it doesn't qualify as a charge if you don't have Battle Jump. What follows (at least for me) is that if you do have Battle Jump, the same action (=not a full-round action) would result in a charge.

We can keep arguing about this, but since we are following the exact same reasoning and reading the feat in the same way except for the conclusion we reach, I doubt it would be productive.

[Jowgen]

First of all, I'd like to thank you Jowgen as all your optimization threads devoted to clarify and build upon small pieces RAW are always interesting and a font of inspiration for me to theorycraft the craziest characters (for example Loose Cannon Jigwen, a halfling swordsage with a stone spitter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?555207-Making-sense-of-and-optimising-the-Stone-Spitter) grafted onto his abdomen whose beard is always on fire, just in case he needs to light a match).

I am honored, and pleased that my occasional expeditions into the realm of lesser known game elements are a source of enjoyment for someone other than myself :smallredface:

I think your breakdown of the feat makes excellent sense, and it is very interesting how it matches Tonymitsu's while reaching a different conclusion.

To try and condense it down a bit, you both consider Battle Jump to be a modified charge: the 5 ft drop condition replaces the usual conditions that must be met for the attack at the end of the charge to gain the benefits that come from executing a charge. The difference is that that Tonymitsu believes that one must still take the full-round charge action proper to begin with, while you believe that the act of dropping 5 ft is sufficient to trigger the benefits that would normally result from the full round charge action on the attack.

Basically, Tonymitsu reads "when using the charge action, you may eschew the normal movement requirements in favour of requirement X", while yours is "when you meet requirement X, you may attack as if you were using the charge action".

Your reading allows us to get around the closest square issue. The Battle Jumper isn't taking the charge action while dropping, so not only doesn't he have to do the usual 10+ ft of straight line movement, but he doesn't have to attack as soon as he's in range. He can choose to "activate" Battle Jump at any point during his drop 5+ ft drop at he which meets the battle jump requirements (provided he has a standard action left to attack). So being large and wielding a spiked chain doesn't require a drop from 25 ft up for a battle jump in this case.

If we go with Tonymitsu's reading... I can only see it addressing that problem if the 5 ft drop doesn't replace just the 10 ft straight line movement requirement, but all other movement and position requirements leading up to the attack as well. Instead of taking a full round action to move in a straight line and attack from the closest threatening square, you take a full round action to move in any way that results in a 5 ft relative drop to attack from any threatening square.

Personally, I still lean towards considering Battle Jump it's own special combat action that happens to count as a charge for the purpose of relevant effects. This is purely because the feat text doesn't mention the +2 Atk -2 AC. Yes, this, might just be an omission because the writer assumed saying you're "executing a charge" was enough to make it clear you're supposed to get those benefits, but it could also be that the Battle Jump benefits were intended to replace them same as the movement and action requirements.


This aside, one thing we haven't really nailed down is the movement and action cost of dropping. As far as I can tell, movement made while dropping is free. A flying creature can enter a free fall as a free action same as anyone can drop prone, and they fall up to a certain max distance/round. I think by the same token there is nothing to prevent someone on a 20 ft ledge to take a 5 ft step into mid-air, drop down, and then take some kind of full-round action after landing. Objections?

[Bountious]

If the Battle Jump feat gave actions for the charge, Cobra Straps from the Item Compendium would lead to an arbitrary number of attacks for only a feat and a 1.4k gold item. I'm guessing that most DMs don't want that running around their game, even though I agree that Leap Attack is ambiguous as to whether you need to invest actions to get charges.

On the other hand, I don't see Leap Attack as being a useful feat if you aren't gifted the actions by the feat. The only sensible actions that could get a person into position for such a charge would cost other actions, leading to an inability to use Leap Attack during the same round that you use movement or transpositioning effects. Such a reading would require the help of other casters in order to be efficient.

Overall, I'd say it's probably better to have a bad feat than to have a feat that easily gives an arbitrary number of attacks at any level, given a 1.4k item.

[Bountious]

I've been doing extra attack research, and here's my conclusion:
It would seem that Battle Jump doesn't necessarily provide actions.

Sun School feat and Shadow Pounce class ability from the Crinti Shadow Marauder class operate similarly, so I'll use them as examples.
Sun School says that "you can immediately make a single attack" when you move adjacent instantaneously.
Shadow Pounce says "she can execute a full attack upon completion of the teleportation."

"Can make" an attack and "can execute a full attack" are different options. Execution of an action still requires actions, while being allowed to make attacks doesn't. While interpreting Battle Jump this way pretty-much reduces its usefulness to nil, barring extra actions, it seems to be a consistent interpretation and doesn't break the game.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread necromancy is disfavored here.