"Can grapplers deal good damage?" - A Tasha's build

[Awrysight]

Hey all!

So, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is out and we've got a few interesting new options now. The one I'm most interested in right now is the Path of the Beast Barbarian, so I decided to make a build for it.

First let's talk about what we get:

Form of the beast: three options for natural weapons, which we choose when we rage and last until the rage is over. Each has its advantages, but the most interesting is the claws, which give us the benefits of two-weapon fighting with the action economy of two-handed weapons.

Bestial soul: I love this feature, probably way too much, but it's actually the core of the build. Three options again, change on a short rest, the first being the full water campaign package. Circumstantial, but easy to swap in and out, exactly how we like it. Second is climb speed, pretty good shenanigans but not why we're here. Third may appear inconsequential, but in the right combo it's the most powerful feature of the subclass: extend your jump by a number of feet equal to the result of an Athletics check. Do you see it? Do you feel it? Do you ... hear it?

IT'S THE POWERBOMB SUPLEX SHOULDER THROW!!!!:thog:
(Originally in ktkenshinx's grappler's manual, in the old wotc forum)

Now with extra cheese and no pre buffing! Further discussions down below. Oh, and our natural weapons count as magical.

Infectious Fury: neat and kinda interesting, but will probably end up being just a damage buff most of the time.

Call the Hunt: a bit underwhelming, to be honest. Some thp to us and a minor damage boost to allies. Better than nothing, I guess.

These features, especially the first one, steer this subclass towards grappling, which, coupled with the fact that Barbarians are pretty good at it by default and the Skill Expert feat from Tasha's, makes an amazing grappler.

And now into the build proper:

For the race, I recommend Goliath for the Powerful Build feature, which allows us to bypass the possible restrictions around carrying capacity, and the ability score increases are already where we want them anyway.

The ability scores (point-buy):
Str: 15(17)
Dex: 12
Con: 15(16)
Int: 8
Wis: 13
Cha: 8

The classes: Barbarian 6/Monk 4/Barbarian X
Subclass(3): Path of the Beast
ASI(4): Skill Expert (Athletics, Str+1)
Subclass(9): Doesn't really matter, probably shadow for the utility (and the Silence)
ASI(10): Mobile
ASI(12): Str+2
ASI(16): Con+2
ASI(20): Con+2

And finally, the mechanics:

The Powerbomb Suplex Shoulder Throw (henceforth PSST) consists in taking 1-2 close friends you're hugging tightly to new heights, specifically 50 ft up, letting them go and taste freedom, and then going straight down, ideally landing right on top of them, and then hugging them again while they're lying flat on the ground trying to recover from the pain. The best part is, if you do it to a single enemy, you even get an attack on them on top of it (two with the claws!)

But how does it work?
First the movement speed: we have 60 ft of movement (30 base + 10 barbarian + 10 monk + 10 mobile). When you jump, you need to have enough movement speed to go the entire distance in your turn, on top of a 10 ft movent in a straight line required before jumping. Meanwhile, the rules for grappling say you move at half speed when dragging or carrying an enemy. This means that in order to jump 50 ft while carrying someone, we need a movent of 120 ft, which basically demands that we dash. Luckly monk 2 gives us step of the wind, which allows us to dash as a bonus action at the cost of one ki, and, the part that is often forgotten, it doubles our jump distance!

The Jump: how high you can jump is given by the formula: 3 + Str modifier feet. At level 10, which is when this combo really comes online, we'll have 18 Str, so that's a 7. Add in the athletics roll from Bestial Soul, it's another 4 from Str, double the proficiency bonus from expertise (8), as well as the roll, so that's a 19+roll, for a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 39. Keep in mind that we roll with advantage while we're enraged. Double that from the step of the wind, and we're at 40-78 feet, but we're capped at 50 from our movement, which gives us a 6,25% chance of jumping 40-49 ft and the rest is 50 ft. As you level up, the chance of reaching 50 ft increases significantly with Str mod and proficiency bonus.

The damage: falling damage is 1d6 for every 10 feet of falling, no save, so we're looking at 4 or 5 d6 of damage with no save. If your dm lets you land on top of your enemy, you can double that damage, to a massive 10d6 in ideal circumstances! On top of the two claw attacks we can make as well!

By now, you may have noticed something strange: what about us? We're falling too, won't we take damage? And the answer is ... no. Let's look at the math: the maximum damage we can take at 5d6 is 30 points of bludgeoning damage. Wait, bludgeoning? We're raging, so we have resistance to that! 15 points of damage. The monk feature Slow Fall allows us to use our reaction to reduce the falling damage we take by 5 times our monk level, which is 4, to a total of 20! Even if we fell from 70 ft we would only take damage on the maximum roll, which is a 1 in ... 6^7=279936 chance!

With all that, I can only conclude that yes, grapplers can deal very good damage indeed!

On more general terms, we can still do pretty good damage with claws + martial arts (the natural weapons count as monk weapons) and the biggest disavantage of this build is definetely the low AC, but we have high hit points and rage resistances, so it shouldn't be too bad. On another note, we can easily jump up to flying enemies too, which is just icing on the cake.

EDIT: With the lengthy discussion regarding the rules for jumping in this thread, I'd like to note that this build makes use of several unclear/disputed rules, such as natural weapons, grappling, carrying capacity and jumping. For that reason, it is particularly subject to DM rulings, which led me to taking a conservative interpretation of the rules, i.e. considering the worst-case scenario. Your DM might rule some things more favorably for you, which would make some of the choices in this build unnecessary. In addition, this build is pretty open past level 10, and further multiclassing may bring more benefits. If you plan to use this, make changes accordingly!

[MagneticKitty]

This looks pretty neat! I'm playing something kind of similar. I opted for Simic hybrid for the slow fall, outright negating fall damage unless it's from very high. you could also take grappling appendages (although I did not because flavor wise I'm playing him as a half black dragon who can spit acid) This negates the need for levels of monk, which didn't really appeal to me in this build. I instead say a dip into rogue for expertise in athletics and cunning action infinite bonus action to dash. if there's a wall you can run up the wall using the climbing ability instead, dropping them from 100 feet up, then floating harmlessly to the ground. Add mobile to this for more fun.

[Snowbluff]

I would suggest adding some Rune Knight so you can become larger for big grappling targets.

[Dork_Forge]

Well this is not what I thought of when i saw the thread title but it was very amusing, bravo!

[bendking]

Love the creativity here. Good job!
This might be the new best grapple build. Would be happy to see anyone make something stronger, though.

[Unoriginal]

he Tasha's rules on falling on someone is that both takes half the damage, but a Raging Barbarian wouldn't have to worry too much about that. Means that lifting the foe in the air, letting them hit the ground and landing on them deals 1.5 time the damage dice of a regular fall.

On the topic of dealing no-save damage while wrestling, the Unarmed Fighting Style also allows that (and like fall damage it bypasses resistance/immunity to damage from non-magical weapons).

[Segev]

Does Tasha’s give rules for how an athletics check actually impacts jump distance?

[Unoriginal]

Does Tasha’s give rules for how an athletics check actually impacts jump distance?

Only for a special ability of the Beast Barbarian.

[Scarytincan]

If I recall, there was something in tashas actually talking about creatures landing on top of other creatures, and each taking half the damage or something like that. Regardless, if you use slow fall, I'm pretty sure that would negate that damage to what you land on as well, but I could totally see a case being made for them taking full damage for the part you are resistant to at least

[Segev]

Only for a special ability of the Beast Barbarian.

Ah.

Given that that's a class feature, it probably should set a ceiling for how effective the Strength(Athletics) roll the PHB says the DM may ask of a player to determine how far the player may exceed his Strength score as a jumping distance.

[wunderkid]

So I loved the old grapple suplex build and this one is just so much cooler and easier to pull off bravo.

I have already made an NPC mini boss challenge from this. A terrifying duo called; The Rock and The Pebble.

The Rock is what you've basically built, a goliath barbarian wrestler at level 10 with 6 in barb 4 in monk and designed to Suplex.

The Pebble is a halfling, 6 levels in peace cleric 4 in mercy monk, and has the "Tag me in" ability from level 6 peace cleric but mostly is there to support the rock with a little kungfu wrestling and his mercy mask is a luchador mask. Oh and use spiritual weapon which is a metal chair ofc.

Looking forward to seeing how they do when people challenge them to a 2v2 cage match (The reward for winning is a belt of hill giant strength as the championship belt).

EDIT: Now making "The Boulder" a rune knight unarmed fighter. Looks like its going to become an Anti-Party encounter at this rate if I can come up with a couple more ideas lol

[Awrysight]

This looks pretty neat! I'm playing something kind of similar. I opted for Simic hybrid for the slow fall, outright negating fall damage unless it's from very high. you could also take grappling appendages (although I did not because flavor wise I'm playing him as a half black dragon who can spit acid) This negates the need for levels of monk, which didn't really appeal to me in this build. I instead say a dip into rogue for expertise in athletics and cunning action infinite bonus action to dash. if there's a wall you can run up the wall using the climbing ability instead, dropping them from 100 feet up, then floating harmlessly to the ground. Add mobile to this for more fun.
That sounds pretty interesting, but the reliance on walls takes away a lot of versatility.


I would suggest adding some Rune Knight so you can become larger for big grappling targets.
Could be good too, and the Blind Fighting Style caught my attention.


Well this is not what I thought of when i saw the thread title but it was very amusing, bravo!

Love the creativity here. Good job!
This might be the new best grapple build. Would be happy to see anyone make something stronger, though.
Thanks!


So I loved the old grapple suplex build and this one is just so much cooler and easier to pull off bravo.

I have already made an NPC mini boss challenge from this. A terrifying duo called; The Rock and The Pebble.

The Rock is what you've basically built, a goliath barbarian wrestler at level 10 with 6 in barb 4 in monk and designed to Suplex.

The Pebble is a halfling, 6 levels in peace cleric 4 in mercy monk, and has the "Tag me in" ability from level 6 peace cleric but mostly is there to support the rock with a little kungfu wrestling and his mercy mask is a luchador mask. Oh and use spiritual weapon which is a metal chair ofc.

Looking forward to seeing how they do when people challenge them to a 2v2 cage match (The reward for winning is a belt of hill giant strength as the championship belt).

EDIT: Now making "The Boulder" a rune knight unarmed fighter. Looks like its going to become an Anti-Party encounter at this rate if I can come up with a couple more ideas lol
That's pretty nice, but be careful not to cause a TPK, ha ha!

[Awrysight]

he Tasha's rules on falling on someone is that both takes half the damage, but a Raging Barbarian wouldn't have to worry too much about that. Means that lifting the foe in the air, letting them hit the ground and landing on them deals 1.5 time the damage dice of a regular fall.


If I recall, there was something in tashas actually talking about creatures landing on top of other creatures, and each taking half the damage or something like that.
Well, I totally missed that one. Does give some food for thought though, that means the maximum damage we can tank from the fall is 80, which is 130 ft. With some magic items and party buffs, I think we can reach it pretty easily, which would actually be a massive damage buff.


Regardless, if you use slow fall, I'm pretty sure that would negate that damage to what you land on as well, but I could totally see a case being made for them taking full damage for the part you are resistant to at least
True, maybe they'd take half damage since it's what we're tanking from the resistance, to a total maneuver damage of 1.25 x fall damage?

[Segev]

I feel we would be remiss not to also consider the Unarmed Fighting Style. It doesn't come naturally to Barbarians, but it's achievable via feat and Fighter class. (Sad to see they took it off of the Ranger; I do think the Tasha's version is better than the UA version in terms of balance, though. Also easier to manage rather than being 'extra damage when you hit somebody you're grappling'.)

The dedicated grappler isn't going to be using a shield or other weapon, because he'll be busy holding people in any free hands he's got. So with that style, 1d8 base damage for unarmed strikes, and 1d4 extra damage at the start of each turn against anybody being grappled. If you can convince your DM that at least one of your grapple-ees is an improvised weapon, you can beat one with the other when you've got both hands full!

[wunderkid]

That's pretty nice, but be careful not to cause a TPK, ha ha!

Ah its an anti-party challenge, so no killing is one of the rules of the ring. The Boulder is now a mountain dwarf rune knight to become large. The manager is a aberrant sorc who whips the crowds into a frenzy. Just need one more "Fighter" to round off the group.

[Awrysight]

I think you are supposed to reduce damage before you halve it.
Do you have a quote for that?


And I could see slow fall affecting anyone you are grappling unless you let go which the dm might rule affects your other attacks unless you do those before the jump?
Yes, you let go of them. The complete process is grapple (can be done in the previous round), jump, let them go in a way they fall down before you do, fall on top of them (they're prone from taking falling damage while you're standing because you took none), and them grapple them back. The total action cost (assuming you started you turn already in a grapple) is your movement, one bonus action, one reaction and one attack (assuming you have extra attack).

After everything is done, you're standing with one attack left while grappling a prone enemy, so I don't see how that might affect any attacks you make afterwards.

[Awrysight]

I feel we would be remiss not to also consider the Unarmed Fighting Style. It doesn't come naturally to Barbarians, but it's achievable via feat and Fighter class. (Sad to see they took it off of the Ranger; I do think the Tasha's version is better than the UA version in terms of balance, though. Also easier to manage rather than being 'extra damage when you hit somebody you're grappling'.)

The dedicated grappler isn't going to be using a shield or other weapon, because he'll be busy holding people in any free hands he's got. So with that style, 1d8 base damage for unarmed strikes, and 1d4 extra damage at the start of each turn against anybody being grappled. If you can convince your DM that at least one of your grapple-ees is an improvised weapon, you can beat one with the other when you've got both hands full!
The Unarmed Fighting Style is pretty good for grapplers in general, but it's redundant with our level 3 feature that gives us natural weapons, so all we would be really getting is the 1d4 damage, which isn't nearly enough to justify taking it.

[Segev]

The Unarmed Fighting Style is pretty good for grapplers in general, but it's redundant with our level 3 feature that gives us natural weapons, so all we would be really getting is the 1d4 damage, which isn't nearly enough to justify taking it.

Fair enough. If third-multiclassing into Fighter for other reasons (Action Surge is always nice for a grappler...as it is for almost anybody, really), would Battle Master be useful?

In particular, I'm wondering if Open Hand Monk could combo with the grappling strike to do an attack, a grapple, and a knockdown in one attack. You'd use the Maneuver that lets you spend a superiority die (adding it to damage) when you hit with an attack with Open Hand style allowing you to force a Dex save vs. being rendered prone, and you immediately follow up with the bonus action to grapple.

[x3n0n]

In particular, I'm wondering if Open Hand Monk could combo with the grappling strike to do an attack, a grapple, and a knockdown in one attack. You'd use the Maneuver that lets you spend a superiority die (adding it to damage) when you hit with an attack with Open Hand style allowing you to force a Dex save vs. being rendered prone, and you immediately follow up with the bonus action to grapple.

I think Open Hand only functions on Flurry of Blows, implying that you've already used your bonus action.

[Awrysight]

Fair enough. If third-multiclassing into Fighter for other reasons (Action Surge is always nice for a grappler...as it is for almost anybody, really), would Battle Master be useful?

In particular, I'm wondering if Open Hand Monk could combo with the grappling strike to do an attack, a grapple, and a knockdown in one attack. You'd use the Maneuver that lets you spend a superiority die (adding it to damage) when you hit with an attack with Open Hand style allowing you to force a Dex save vs. being rendered prone, and you immediately follow up with the bonus action to grapple.
Open hand isn't a good idea because the DC relies on wisdom, and ours is terrible. On top of that, as x3n0n said, it uses our bonus action, so it wouldn't work for that reason as well.
As for multiclassing fighter, it's a good idea, but it's probably better to go with Rune Knight for the enlarge, since the biggest advantage in Battlemaster for grapplers is the knockdown, which we can do much better with the PSST.

[stoutstien]

Open hand isn't a good idea because the DC relies on wisdom, and ours is terrible. On top of that, as x3n0n said, it uses our bonus action, so it wouldn't work for that reason as well.
As for multiclassing fighter, it's a good idea, but it's probably better to go with Rune Knight for the enlarge, since the biggest advantage in Battlemaster for grapplers is the knockdown, which we can do much better with the PSST.

Even more so now that the Giants might is proficiency based.

[Zaile]

A thing to keep in mind. High-jumping does not cause falling damage to you unless you fall further than your possible jump height (see below), so unless you land on top of a creature, you take no damage.

If you choose to land on a creature, then you take half the damage. See Macho Man

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

[diplomancer]

Hmm, you might have to raise your Dex before you can get the Monk levels, as monks require both Dex and Wis 13.
But definitely fun build!

[MaxWilson]

Longstrider would add 10' to your base movement distance, which would let you jump 60' up instead of 50'.

[JediMaster]

Longstrider would add 10' to your base movement distance, which would let you jump 60' up instead of 50'.

Yea. A dip in Wizard adds Longstrider, Jump, and Expeditious Retreat. So how about a Wizard dip to make the jump even higher?

[Galithar]

Make it a Tabaxi and you can double your move speed as often as every other turn. Add in the previous Wizard dip suggestion, or the Eldritch Adept feat for Otherworldly Leap, and you can be jumping to some ridiculous heights. Of course that means your Monk Slow Fall wouldn't be saving you from all the damage anymore.

[JediMaster]

Make it a Tabaxi and you can double your move speed as often as every other turn. Add in the previous Wizard dip suggestion, or the Eldritch Adept feat for Otherworldly Leap, and you can be jumping to some ridiculous heights. Of course that means your Monk Slow Fall wouldn't be saving you from all the damage anymore.

At the tables I play at and DM, jumping doesn't cause falling damage unless you fall further than where your jump started at.

But if you have a DM that says otherwise there is always Feather Fall.

[Segev]

I know there aren't magic marts, but Uncommon items are still something you can theoretically go hunting for and find. A Ring of Jumping is superior to even Otherworldly Leap: it lets you cast jump on yourself as a bonus action at will. That's right: as a bonus action." It does require attunement, though.

It seems a little cheesy that you can negate the falling damage you inflict on somebody else with a flying suplex. And I don't think the rules as written support Mr. Crawford's ruling. It's a valid and semi-reasonable ruling, but it is veering away from the way the rules are written. So don't expect a DM to agree with it if you're planning to abuse it. Especially since you can negate the damage with Slow Fall, and really, while the leaping smash to prone your grappled "friends" is very efficient, an Open Palm Monk still has more options to manage it if you lack enough movement after moving in to grapple. (Who am I kidding? If you didn't need to dash to move in, you can dash to do the flying leap into the air.)

...huh. Is Open Palm's "make them make a Dex save or be knocked prone if you hit them with a flurry of blows" even useful when you can just leap into the air with them and drop them?

[MaxWilson]

...huh. Is Open Palm's "make them make a Dex save or be knocked prone if you hit them with a flurry of blows" even useful when you can just leap into the air with them and drop them?

Well, for one thing it works on creatures too large to grapple/too heavy to lift.

[JediMaster]

And I don't think the rules as written support Mr. Crawford's ruling. It's a valid and semi-reasonable ruling, but it is veering away from the way the rules are written. So don't expect a DM to agree with it if you're planning to abuse it.

I don't agree with you there. Jump is a special type of movement subject to the rules it lays out mechanically to resolve.

[Segev]

I don't agree with you there. Jump is a special type of movement subject to the rules it lays out mechanically to resolve.

I don’t see anywhere in the rules that it states that you can jump down safely, nor that a high jump lets you land safely.

In fact, implied use case in the text that they had in mind was jumping up to grab hold of something. So you wouldn’t be expected to fall back down.

Jumping down safely sounds like a Dexterity (Acrobatics) or Strength (Athletics) check, but whether you should be able to do that at all, with a check, or automatically when you jump up more than ten feet and then return to the same spot from whence you jumped is not covered explicitly in the rules. Rules do say that falling more than ten feet deals damage and makes you prone.

I am open to being shown more definitive evidence that Crawford’s ruling is supported by more than rule 0, and would t argue too hard with a DM who adopted that rule. But I would caution such a DM that this will open up this suplex move with even less investment.

I do not think it poses any other balance concerns, so your own sense of verisimilitude would be the governing judgment beyond the consequences to grappling.


Oh, also, be aware that the double move cost for grappling creatures doesn’t stop applying just because you’re jumping. If you jump straight up 10 feet, it costs you 20 feet of movement. While most DM’s probably won’t have you wait until next turn to fall if you run out of movement in mid-air, they might still charge you for the falling distance of you want to stand back up and keep moving afterwards.

It’s a little hunky how it ties things to the round structure, but maybe a ruling that you can land safely if you initiated the jump that has you falling and you have enough movement to travel the distance and the fall is no higher than you could jump up to.

[JediMaster]

I don’t see anywhere in the rules that it states that you can jump down safely, nor that a high jump lets you land safely.

In fact, implied use case in the text that they had in mind was jumping up to grab hold of something. So you wouldn’t be expected to fall back down.

Jumping down safely sounds like a Dexterity (Acrobatics) or Strength (Athletics) check, but whether you should be able to do that at all, with a check, or automatically when you jump up more than ten feet and then return to the same spot from whence you jumped is not covered explicitly in the rules. Rules do say that falling more than ten feet deals damage and makes you prone.

I am open to being shown more definitive evidence that Crawford’s ruling is supported by more than rule 0, and would t argue too hard with a DM who adopted that rule. But I would caution such a DM that this will open up this suplex move with even less investment.

I do not think it poses any other balance concerns, so your own sense of verisimilitude would be the governing judgment beyond the consequences to grappling.


Oh, also, be aware that the double move cost for grappling creatures doesn’t stop applying just because you’re jumping. If you jump straight up 10 feet, it costs you 20 feet of movement. While most DM’s probably won’t have you wait until next turn to fall if you run out of movement in mid-air, they might still charge you for the falling distance of you want to stand back up and keep moving afterwards.

It’s a little hunky how it ties things to the round structure, but maybe a ruling that you can land safely if you initiated the jump that has you falling and you have enough movement to travel the distance and the fall is no higher than you could jump up to.

First off, when we are jumping do we consult the rules on jumping or on falling?

[Segev]

First off, when we are jumping do we consult the rules on jumping or on falling?

Both, if both apply.

It’s not a hard question. Unless it is hard because you have conflicting rules based on which we refer to. But that isn’t the case, here: we have rules for how high you can jump, and rules that state that falling more than ten feet inflicts damage. Nothing in the jumping rules that I know of says you don’t fall if you jump up and don’t grab onto or land on something to support you at the top of your jump.

It’s a fine thing to rule. I just don’t see it directly supported. It’s an area that is quite uncovered, except in the separate rules governing two distinct events (jumping being one; falling being the other).

I have no problem ruling that jumping down is possible, nor that jumping up means you can land safely when you fall back down the same distance. But it does make the flying suplex even more powerful due to needing much less investment, since simply being able to jump high enough makes it do no damage to you. No need for investment beyond that.

[JediMaster]

Both, if both apply.

It’s not a hard question. Unless it is hard because you have conflicting rules based on which we refer to. But that isn’t the case, here: we have rules for how high you can jump, and rules that state that falling more than ten feet inflicts damage. Nothing in the jumping rules that I know of says you don’t fall if you jump up and don’t grab onto or land on something to support you at the top of your jump.

It’s a fine thing to rule. I just don’t see it directly supported. It’s an area that is quite uncovered, except in the separate rules governing two distinct events (jumping being one; falling being the other).

I have no problem ruling that jumping down is possible, nor that jumping up means you can land safely when you fall back down the same distance. But it does make the flying suplex even more powerful due to needing much less investment, since simply being able to jump high enough makes it do no damage to you. No need for investment beyond that.

First off, is D&D a physics simulation or a game?

[Segev]

First off, is D&D a physics simulation or a game?

Yes. It is both.

Why are you arguing and playing semantic games, rather than answering—

Oh. I see.

[JediMaster]

Yes. It is both.

Why are you arguing and playing semantic games, rather than answering—

Oh. I see.

Yes. Are we following the rules or are we inserting outside beliefs about physics into the game?

[Gignere]

Yes. Are we following the rules or are we inserting outside beliefs about physics into the game?

Had this debate in another thread I think my thinking on jumping and falling damage is this. If you jump and have enough movement left to land so say you jump 10 feet and fall back 10 feet and you had 20 feet movement at least you won’t take damage.

However if you jump and spend all of your movement going vertical and you are out of movement for the round, you would fall. This isn’t a physics simulator this is the best RAW I can find. Because once you are out of movement unless you have some way to stay in the air, you would fall. Once that happen falling rules come into play.

So for jumping a 10 foot fence, I’d probably rule no damage as long as you had movement left.

However if you are leaping 50 feet into the air with your grappling mobile monk with longstrider, you would take fall damage unless you had an ability that said otherwise. Cough cough slow fall.

[da newt]

What % of combat takes place somewhere out side or in a place with 50+' high ceilings?

Does the Beast Barb's special jump ability say it works on high jumps or long jumps or both?

While dragging someone, won't your jump distance be halved?

[Gignere]

What % of combat takes place somewhere out side or in a place with 50+' high ceilings?

Does the Beast Barb's special jump ability say it works on high jumps or long jumps or both?

While dragging someone, won't your jump distance be halved?

1. Campaign specific but it can happen quite a bit.

2. It just said jump so presumably it adds to both.

3. I don’t think it halved it but it would be reasonably to cost double your movement to jump the same distance but I don’t think the RAW is clear on this.

[da newt]

Moving a Grappled Creature. When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you.

PHB pg 195.

Seems unambiguous that RAW your jump distance will be halved ...

[Gignere]

Moving a Grappled Creature. When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you.

PHB pg 195.

Seems unambiguous that RAW your jump distance will be halved ...

I stand corrected.

[Master O'Laughs]

So to create this fun and silly character, 6 levels of Beast Barbarian seem necessary to do this with no resources for increasing jump distance or a ring of jumping. Next Monk to add additional movement speed and a way take the dash action as a bonus action while also increasing jump distance. 4 levels would get you a feast and the ability to BA: Dash and jump 4/rest if ki is spent on nothing else.

Would 3 to 4 levels of fighter make sense to have the ability to go Large (Rune Knight) or Manuevers (battle master)?

This would necessitate the need for decent Strength, Constitution, 13 wisdom and 13 dex.

What about race? Any powerful build race would be useful but Centaur seems the silliest. Tabaxi as someone else pointed out for the ever other movement doubling. Satyr gives the very useful magic resistance and also adds a 1d8 to jump distance. The you have Simic Hybrid for either climb speed or feather fall and then grappling arms.

Thoughts?

[Segev]

Had this debate in another thread I think my thinking on jumping and falling damage is this. If you jump and have enough movement left to land so say you jump 10 feet and fall back 10 feet and you had 20 feet movement at least you won’t take damage.

However if you jump and spend all of your movement going vertical and you are out of movement for the round, you would fall. This isn’t a physics simulator this is the best RAW I can find. Because once you are out of movement unless you have some way to stay in the air, you would fall. Once that happen falling rules come into play.

So for jumping a 10 foot fence, I’d probably rule no damage as long as you had movement left.

However if you are leaping 50 feet into the air with your grappling mobile monk with longstrider, you would take fall damage unless you had an ability that said otherwise. Cough cough slow fall.

I think that a reasonable ruling. My take on the RAW are that there are no rules for "jumping down," let alone rules for "returning safely" from the top of a jump. At best, the DM can use the inadequately-specified ability check system to ad hoc a DC for determining if a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check can save you from damage if you're "controlling" your descent in some fashion. But the falling rules provide no cushion (haha) for that.

To me, the rules that exist are: rules for determining how high you can jump, and rules for determining what happens when you come down from a given height. So you jump up, and, if you don't manage to stay "up," you come down from that point and the falling rules apply. They even specify that you fall prone (only) if you take damage from the fall, so if something negates the damage for you, you land on your feet.

Like I said, I'm all for DMs looking for greater verisimilitude allowing deliberate jumps down from heights to which you can jump, or recovery from a high jump back down. But they are not supported by the RAW, except insofar that the DM can rule anything he wants.

I wouldn't make such a big deal out of this if we weren't discussing a build where it's crucial to know whether or not you take damage from jumping straight up into the air while holding a grappled foe causes you to take the same damage he does when you both return to the ground.

[JediMaster]

Had this debate in another thread I think my thinking on jumping and falling damage is this. If you jump and have enough movement left to land so say you jump 10 feet and fall back 10 feet and you had 20 feet movement at least you won’t take damage.

However if you jump and spend all of your movement going vertical and you are out of movement for the round, you would fall. This isn’t a physics simulator this is the best RAW I can find. Because once you are out of movement unless you have some way to stay in the air, you would fall. Once that happen falling rules come into play.

So for jumping a 10 foot fence, I’d probably rule no damage as long as you had movement left.

However if you are leaping 50 feet into the air with your grappling mobile monk with longstrider, you would take fall damage unless you had an ability that said otherwise. Cough cough slow fall.

The rules for long jump and high jump are both specific as to how they spend movement. Neither of them mention spending movement based on falling distance. Why are you adding this requirement to the rules?


I think that a reasonable ruling. My take on the RAW are that there are no rules for "jumping down," let alone rules for "returning safely" from the top of a jump. At best, the DM can use the inadequately-specified ability check system to ad hoc a DC for determining if a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check can save you from damage if you're "controlling" your descent in some fashion. But the falling rules provide no cushion (haha) for that.

My take on the RAW is to follow the Jumping rules when performing a Jump. The Jump rules don't mention using the rules for falling so I am wondering why you use them.

[Gignere]

The rules for long jump and high jump are both specific as to how they spend movement. Neither of them mention spending movement based on falling distance. Why are you adding this requirement to the rules?

Because the rules are also specific that the jump rules only apply if you have movement. If you have no movement left it is silent, in fact you are not jumping any more. However you don’t instantly teleport back to the ground if you vertical 50 feet and use all your movement.

You now have no movement left what happens?

So I think falling rules take over or else you are left just frozen in the air in a twilight zone of RAW gap.

[JediMaster]

Because the rules are also specific that the jump rules only apply if you have movement. If you have no movement left it is silent, in fact you are not jumping any more. However you don’t instantly teleport back to the ground if you vertical 50 feet and use all your movement.

You now have no movement left what happens?

So I think falling rules take over or else you are left just frozen in the air in a twilight zone of RAW gap.

In a high jump the rules specifically tell you to spend movement until you clear the height of the jump. The rest of the jump is free of movement cost based on the rules provided.

You are adding your own movement costs to the rules which leads you to broken consequences. If you simply follow the rules on jumping there are no broken consequences.

[Gignere]

In a high jump the rules specifically tell you to spend movement until you clear the height of the jump. The rest of the jump is free of movement cost based on the rules provided.

You are adding your own movement costs to the rules which leads you to broken consequences. If you simply follow the rules on jumping there are no broken consequences.

It doesn’t say there is no movement cost either, if there is post the RAW on it. The only free movement modes are falling and teleportation which doesn’t take movement.

Edit: not taking into account of forced movement.

[JediMaster]

It doesn’t say there is no movement cost either, if there is post the RAW on it. The only free movement modes are falling and teleportation which doesn’t take movement.

Sure, ". . .each foot you clear costs a foot of movement" is the rule pertaining to movement costs for High Jumping.

[Gignere]

Sure, ". . .each foot you clear costs a foot of movement" is the rule pertaining to movement costs for High Jumping.

That describes how far you can vertical. What happens when you run out of movement after going up?

[JediMaster]

That describes how far you can vertical. What happens when you run out of movement after going up?

For a high jump you can go as high as you have movement to spend on clearing the height. There is no cost associated with the rest of a jump. Do you see a cost in the rules provided?

Jeremy Crawford in his old tweet is following the provided rules.

[Gignere]

For a high jump you can go as high as you have movement to spend on clearing the height. There is no cost associated with the rest of a jump. Do you see a cost in the rules provided?

Jeremy Crawford in his old tweet is following the provided rules.

I don’t think because the rules are silent on a cost to come back down you can assume you instantly teleport back down to the ground.

The JC quote was obviously him ruling on a rogue jumping a 10 feet wall and saying in that situation that is how he would rule.

It is not him saying if you vertical 50 feet, you can safely land back down without movement cost or avoid the falling rules.

[JediMaster]

I don’t think because the rules are silent on a cost to come back down you can assume you instantly teleport back down to the ground.

The JC quote was obviously him ruling on a rogue jumping a 10 feet wall and saying in that situation that is how he would rule.

It is not him saying if you vertical 50 feet, you can safely land back down without movement cost or avoid the falling rules.

The rules aren't silent. You perform the jump with the instructions provided and everything works fine.

The rules are silent for you where you think a cost should be paid that the rules don't mention. But that is because you are trying to add something to the rules. Why are you adding something to the rules for jumping that breaks the rules for jumping?

[Gignere]

The rules aren't silent. You perform the jump with the instructions provided and everything works fine.

The rules are silent for you where you think a cost should be paid that the rules don't mention. But that is because you are trying to add something to the rules. Why are you adding something to the rules for jumping that breaks the rules for jumping?

There is no rules on jumping after you use up the movement. You need to either reference a different rule depending on situation. If at the end of the jump you are back on land you reference normal movement rules. If you are in the air when your movement are used up, you are not jumping any longer. You are the one that is extrapolating from the silence of the jumping rules into rules that doesn’t exist. In that you land safely from a very high vertical if you use jump to reach such a height.

Whereas I am referring to falling rules because if you are in the air and have no movement left or a landing or some ability to stay in the air after jumping up, you need to find a rule that applies in that situation. It is you trying to circumvent RAW not I, I am referring to a different RAW the falling rules.

[JediMaster]

There is no rules on jumping after you use up the movement. You need to either reference a different rule depending on situation. If at the end of the jump you are back on land you reference normal movement rules. If you are in the air when your movement are used up, you are not jumping any longer. You are the one that is extrapolating from the silence of the jumping rules into rules that doesn’t exist. In that you land safely from a very high vertical if you use jump to reach such a height.

Whereas I am referring to falling rules because if you are in the air and have no movement left or a landing or some ability to stay in the air after jumping up, you need to find a rule that applies in that situation. It is you trying to circumvent RAW not I, I am referring to a different RAW the falling rules.

You are treating Jumping as a special kind of Falling based on adding your own rules to the Jumping rules. Not surprisingly you break the rules for Jumping when you do so.

I am following the rules for Jumping as a special kind of movement. The rules provided indicate that if I try to land in difficult terain I might need a skill check or fall prone. When the rules are followed nothing breaks and the jump is resolved as expected.

[Segev]

My take on the RAW is to follow the Jumping rules when performing a Jump. The Jump rules don't mention using the rules for falling so I am wondering why you use them.

Okay. You high jump 15 feet into the air in the middle of a large, flat-topped stone mesa 200 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, with nothing around you for hundreds of feet. You use no magical powers or special abilities. After you arrive 15 feet in the air, what, per the rules of the game, happens to you?

If it helps for reference, if you walk to the edge of this mesa, and long-jump 54 feet out from the edge, what happens when you reach the end of that 54 feet, ending in mid-air?

Using only the rules of the game.

[JediMaster]

Okay. You high jump 15 feet into the air in the middle of a large, flat-topped stone mesa 200 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, with nothing around you for hundreds of feet. You use no magical powers or special abilities. After you arrive 15 feet in the air, what, per the rules of the game, happens to you?

If it helps for reference, if you walk to the edge of this mesa, and long-jump 54 feet out from the edge, what happens when you reach the end of that 54 feet, ending in mid-air?

Using only the rules of the game.

Your movement is subject to the rules of Jumping until you are no longer Jumping. The rules for Jumping return you to your original vertical. Any forced movement beyond returning to the original vertical is subject to the rules for Falling.

This is exactly what JC indicates happens.

[Segev]

Your movement is subject to the rules of Jumping until you are no longer Jumping. The rules for Jumping return you to your original vertical. Any forced movement beyond returning to the original vertical is subject to the rules for Falling.

This is exactly what JC indicates happens.

Please cite the rule for "returning to your original vertical" being the end of "jumping." This is particularly interesting in light of the reference under the high jumping section to grabbing onto things at the top of your jump; have you not ceased to jump when you grab onto it? If you grab onto a ledge at the top of your high jump, and climb up on it, are you still jumping until you "return to your original vertical?"

[Valmark]

If it helps anything, when a person jumps they supposedly don't get hurt from the landing if it's either above or on the same level- this because the force you receive when you land is roughly equal to the force you exert when you jump (if on the same level, lesser force if you land above your starting point).

Supposedly because you should be landing safely. I managed to hurt myself with a simple jump for example, although I'm an example of terrible athleticism and not a barbarian/monk with extensive martial training.

[JediMaster]

Please cite the rule for "returning to your original vertical" being the end of "jumping." This is particularly interesting in light of the reference under the high jumping section to grabbing onto things at the top of your jump; have you not ceased to jump when you grab onto it? If you grab onto a ledge at the top of your high jump, and climb up on it, are you still jumping until you "return to your original vertical?"

You can interrupt a Jump by grabbing a ledge to halt your Jump movement.

If you follow the Jump instructions you land back on the ground. If you land on difficult terrain you might need a skill roll or you might fall prone.

The way you are interpreting the Jump rules, the rules are fundamentally broken. Jumps are mandatorily Falls according to you, and yet the rules have ommitted that critical bit of information. They have ommitted telling you the second half of every Jump is a Fall.

I simply follow the rules for Jumping and everything works as expected. I do not insert any belief that jumping is falling into the rules. I use the rules for Jumping when my character is Jumping. Unless he attempts to land on difficult terrain he will land safely. If something forces him to move other than Jump he is subject to those rules.

This corresponds exactly to JCs view. Do you think he views the rules of Jumping as broken and ommiting critical information?

When you are Jumping follow the Jumping rules. When you are falling follow the Falling rules.

[Segev]

You can interrupt a Jump by grabbing a ledge to halt your Jump movement.

If you follow the Jump instructions you land back on the ground. If you land on difficult terrain you might need a skill roll or you might fall prone.

The way you are interpreting the Jump rules, the rules are fundamentally broken. Jumps are mandatorily Falls according to you, and yet the rules have ommitted that critical bit of information. They have ommitted telling you the second half of every Jump is a Fall.

I simply follow the rules for Jumping and everything works as expected. I do not insert any belief that jumping is falling into the rules. I use the rules for Jumping when my character is Jumping. Unless he attempts to land on difficult terrain he will land safely. If something forces him to move other than Jump he is subject to those rules.
ThorOdinson, you're inventing rules because you think they make sense. And your rulings are fine, but you haven't quoted rules to me that specify that a high jump includes a free return to the original elevation.

In fact, the high jump rules specify how high you can reach with a high jump, suggesting the intended use case is that you do, in fact, stop your jump at the top of the jump.

Long jump rules specify that you do not clear significant height when engaging it: they provide a suggestion for an ability check if you need to clear a waist-high obstacle, or you fall prone. Note that I am not asking if long jumps result in a fall; under any case where you're not jumping off of something high up, they do not.

High jump rules do not specify that you land safely at the end. It is imminently reasonable to rule that you do on the grounds that anybody who can jump that high can catch themselves on their feet at the bottom of it. However, the rules also do not permit you to say that you catch yourself on your feet if you fall no further than you could have high jumped. So the falling rules have no special exception for falling a distance less than you could high jump.


This corresponds exactly to JCs view. Do you think he views the rules of Jumping as broken and ommiting critical information?

When you are Jumping follow the Jumping rules. When you are falling follow the Falling rules.I do not believe you have shown the rules of jumping to be broken. They may be incomplete for your verisimilitude's purposes, but as you asked earlier, we're not injecting our beliefs about real-world physics, here.

The rules cover long jumps: you never fall because you're never clearing significant height (assuming you aren't jumping off of something, which we both agree, at the end of your jump, you start falling, if so). High jumps do clear significant height, and the high jumping rules only specify how high you can jump. The jump is over when you reach that height; it provides no guidance for whether you expend movement to return to the ground. Absent rules for returning to the ground after a high jump, if you are not supported by anything, you fall back to the ground. We have rules for falling.

This isn't dysfunctional. "Falling" isn't a problem in 5e unless you fall more than 10 feet, because you take 0 damage from any fall less than 10 feet and you don't fall prone if you don't take damage from a fall. If you jump more than ten feet high, the falling rules will damage you and you will become prone, however, unless the DM rules you can return to the level from which you jumped safely (your ruling, but not supported explicitly by the rules), or you're a monk.

Again, I'm just following the rules, here. The DM is free to rule how he wants, and I totally get rulings to introduce "jumping down" distances you can high jump, or high jumping and returning to the ground without hurting yourself even if you high jump more than 10 feet. Ruling this requires having movement left is possible. Ruling that having movement left is irrelevant is also possible.

[Gignere]

If it helps anything, when a person jumps they supposedly don't get hurt from the landing if it's either above or on the same level- this because the force you receive when you land is roughly equal to the force you exert when you jump (if on the same level, lesser force if you land above your starting point).

Supposedly because you should be landing safely. I managed to hurt myself with a simple jump for example, although I'm an example of terrible athleticism and not a barbarian/monk with extensive martial training.

No this is a misconception or misunderstanding of human physiology. If we were talking about a machine jumping maybe or physics 101 hypothetical question on an exam, you might be able to make this simplifying assumption.

In reality, you jump and land using different muscles, if you aren’t training properly you can and will get seriously injured due to muscle imbalance.

Also if jumping and landing doesn’t cause injury, Olympian’s wouldn’t need to land on mats and sand during jumping events. They would be landing on concrete in every event but obviously this isn’t the case.

[Valmark]

You can interrupt a Jump by grabbing a ledge to halt your Jump movement.

If you follow the Jump instructions you land back on the ground. If you land on difficult terrain you might need a skill roll or you might fall prone.

The way you are interpreting the Jump rules, the rules are fundamentally broken. Jumps are mandatorily Falls according to you, and yet the rules have ommitted that critical bit of information. They have ommitted telling you the second half of every Jump is a Fall.

I simply follow the rules for Jumping and everything works as expected. I do not insert any belief that jumping is falling into the rules. I use the rules for Jumping when my character is Jumping. Unless he attempts to land on difficult terrain he will land safely. If something forces him to move other than Jump he is subject to those rules.

This corresponds exactly to JCs view. Do you think he views the rules of Jumping as broken and ommiting critical information?

When you are Jumping follow the Jumping rules. When you are falling follow the Falling rules.

Not exactly- the rules don't actually say what happens on landing. Like they don't say you could fall Prone on difficult terrain as far as I'm aware.

Segev's argument doesn't break any rule- Jumping rules don't need to mention that going beyond 10 feet without leftover movement (or even with) brings Falling since that's already covered... By Falling.

If anything, you're adding words by saying that you land safely unless on difficult terrain.

Just to be on the safe side with the build discussed it can only be wise to confirm with the DM on the exact mechanics.

[JediMaster]

ThorOdinson, you're inventing rules because you think they make sense. And your rulings are fine, but you haven't quoted rules to me that specify that a high jump includes a free return to the original elevation.

In fact, the high jump rules specify how high you can reach with a high jump, suggesting the intended use case is that you do, in fact, stop your jump at the top of the jump.

Long jump rules specify that you do not clear significant height when engaging it: they provide a suggestion for an ability check if you need to clear a waist-high obstacle, or you fall prone. Note that I am not asking if long jumps result in a fall; under any case where you're not jumping off of something high up, they do not.

High jump rules do not specify that you land safely at the end. It is imminently reasonable to rule that you do on the grounds that anybody who can jump that high can catch themselves on their feet at the bottom of it. However, the rules also do not permit you to say that you catch yourself on your feet if you fall no further than you could have high jumped. So the falling rules have no special exception for falling a distance less than you could high jump.

I do not believe you have shown the rules of jumping to be broken. They may be incomplete for your verisimilitude's purposes, but as you asked earlier, we're not injecting our beliefs about real-world physics, here.

The rules cover long jumps: you never fall because you're never clearing significant height (assuming you aren't jumping off of something, which we both agree, at the end of your jump, you start falling, if so). High jumps do clear significant height, and the high jumping rules only specify how high you can jump. The jump is over when you reach that height; it provides no guidance for whether you expend movement to return to the ground. Absent rules for returning to the ground after a high jump, if you are not supported by anything, you fall back to the ground. We have rules for falling.

This isn't dysfunctional. "Falling" isn't a problem in 5e unless you fall more than 10 feet, because you take 0 damage from any fall less than 10 feet and you don't fall prone if you don't take damage from a fall. If you jump more than ten feet high, the falling rules will damage you and you will become prone, however, unless the DM rules you can return to the level from which you jumped safely (your ruling, but not supported explicitly by the rules), or you're a monk.

Again, I'm just following the rules, here. The DM is free to rule how he wants, and I totally get rulings to introduce "jumping down" distances you can high jump, or high jumping and returning to the ground without hurting yourself even if you high jump more than 10 feet. Ruling this requires having movement left is possible. Ruling that having movement left is irrelevant is also possible.

Where in the Jumping rules does it indicate that a jump is a fall?

No where in the rules.

Why are you forcing Jumps to be falls? You break from the rules as written when you do so.

Does anything in the rules break if we simply follow the rules as written and not insert a fall into them? Nope. They work fine.

Jump is a special kind of movement. You follow the rules for Jumping when you are jumping. The rules for jumping make no mention of falling so jumps are not falls.

This corresponds exactly to JCs view on jump.

[Valmark]

ThorOdinson
Freudian slip? :P (comprehensible)

No this is a misconception or misunderstanding of human physiology. If we were talking about a machine jumping maybe or physics 101 hypothetical question on an exam, you might be able to make this simplifying assumption.

In reality, you jump and land using different muscles, if you aren’t training properly you can and will get seriously injured due to muscle imbalance.

Also if jumping and landing doesn’t cause injury, Olympian’s wouldn’t need to land on mats and sand during jumping events. They would be landing on concrete in every event but obviously this isn’t the case.

Well, I don't know enough about physics to argue on this but Olympian athlets most definitely aren't landing safely- which is something I marked as a core assumption. At least not those that don't land on their feet (actually it's more complicated then that, but I'm not the best person to explain it).

You bet they need mats when they fall on knees or back or whatever.

[Gignere]

Where in the Jumping rules does it indicate that a jump is a fall?

No where in the rules.

Why are you forcing Jumps to be falls? You break from the rules as written when you do so.

Does anything in the rules break if we simply follow the rules as written and not insert a fall into them? Nope. They work fine.

Jump is a special kind of movement. You follow the rules for Jumping when you are jumping. The rules for jumping make no mention of falling so jumps are not falls.

This corresponds exactly to JCs view on jump.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/11/jumping-damage/

Here is actually JC’s view on vertical 30 feet and coming back down 30 feet. The hint is that he would roll damage.

[JediMaster]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/11/jumping-damage/

Here is actually JC’s view on vertical 30 feet and coming back down 30 feet. The hint is that he would roll damage.

He contradicts himself here

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

My view corresponds with the latter Tweet. You follow the rules for Jumping when you are jumping.

The nice thing about my view is super strong creatures who are often also larger than medium do not mandatorily fall flat on their face when their powerful capacity to jump takes them further than the measly 10 feet. Jumping and the capacity to land scale with my view.

It boils down to how the DM rules. If the DM mandates a Fall then you might have to pay the Feather Fall tax.

[Gignere]

He contradicts himself here

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

My view corresponds with the latter Tweet. You follow the rules for Jumping when you are jumping.

The nice thing about my view is super strong creatures who are often also larger than medium do not mandatorily fall flat on their face when their powerful capacity to jump takes them further than the measly 10 feet. Jumping and the capacity to land scale with my view.

It boils down to how the DM rules. If the DM mandates a Fall then you might have to pay the Feather Fall tax.

That’s not contradictory he is ruling on the specific case of a rogue leaping over a 10 feet wall.

In the more specific case that applies here where you spend all or nearly all your movement going vertical he is clear he would roll damage.

One is a 30 feet drop after all movement is used up. The other the one you linked is a 10 feet jump where the rogue hasn’t used up his movement. If you think they are anywhere analogous we just need to agree to disagree.

[JediMaster]

That’s not contradictory he is ruling on the specific case of a rogue leaping over a 10 feet wall.

In the more specific case that applies here where you spend all or nearly all your movement going vertical he is clear he would roll damage.

One is a 30 feet drop after all movement is used up. The other the one you linked is a 10 feet jump where the rogue hasn’t used up his movement. If you think they are anywhere analogous we just need to agree to disagree.

10 feet is sufficient to force a Fall if you require falling as a part of every jump.

My view of course avoids these issues. It is only when a creature tries to push beyond their calculated jumping distance (and fails the skill roll) that our play group rules a mandatory fall. So superstrong/supersized characters and creatures are naturally just capable of landing safely from a jump of 10 feet or higher if they have the ability to jump that high.

[MaxWilson]

He contradicts himself here

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

My view corresponds with the latter Tweet. You follow the rules for Jumping when you are jumping.

The nice thing about my view is super strong creatures who are often also larger than medium do not mandatorily fall flat on their face when their powerful capacity to jump takes them further than the measly 10 feet. Jumping and the capacity to land scale with my view.

It boils down to how the DM rules. If the DM mandates a Fall then you might have to pay the Feather Fall tax.

Like what creatures? Having a Strength 24 Mammoth jump 10' in the air and land gracefully on its feet doesn't strike me as a necessary design property compared to it falling flat, in fact I'd rather it couldn't jump 10' in the air at all.

[Unoriginal]

10 feet is sufficient to force a Fall if you require falling as a part of every jump.

The large majority of characters are unable to jump 10ft vertically.

[JediMaster]

Like what creatures? Having a Strength 24 Mammoth jump 10' in the air and land gracefully on its feet doesn't strike me as a necessary design property compared to it falling flat, in fact I'd rather it couldn't jump 10' in the air at all.

My view doesn't impose falling on Grung, Bullywug, Satyrs, Giants, Tarrasques, Githzerai, or Githyanki who jump within their capabilities.

[Segev]

My view doesn't impose falling on Grung, Bullywug, Satyrs, Tarrasques, Githzerai, or Githyanki who jump within their capabilities.

Indeed it does not. And it’s a perfectly reasonable ruling. But “it makes sense” is not a rule. “DM ruling” is, though. All I’m saying is that you can’t count on a DM ruling in your favor, here, especially if you’re inflicting fall damage on grappled victims while you jump with them.

[Gignere]

My view doesn't impose falling on Grung, Bullywug, Satyrs, Tarrasques, Githzerai, or Githyanki who jump within their capabilities.

The tarrasque doesn’t even need your rule to not take any damage from jumping vertically, it’s immune to nonmagical bludgeoning damage.

[JediMaster]

Indeed it does not. And it’s a perfectly reasonable ruling. But “it makes sense” is not a rule. “DM ruling” is, though. All I’m saying is that you can’t count on a DM ruling in your favor, here, especially if you’re inflicting fall damage on grappled victims while you jump with them.

My view is RAW though. Jumping is a special kind of movement subject to the mechanics of its rules and I simply implement the mechanics provided.

Your argument requires you to interject Falling into the Jump rules (which make no mention of Falling). You are inserting an interpretation into the rules that comes from outside of the rules whereas I am simply following the provided rules.

My view leads to absolutely zero problems.

Your argument leads to several creatures who can't perform according to their abilities without hurting themselves (with no mention made of that capacity for self harm).

Your argument also leads to characters with Belts of Storm Giant Strength whose strength can power leaps but not the landings and Giants who can't jump above 10 feet without catastrophe even though their strength could easily handle the forces involved.

Your argument also leads to movement spells (Jump, Otherworldy Leap) that can kill in the performance of what they do (with no mention made of that capacity in their descriptions).

But yes indeed. The DM is going to rule the way they do. Feather Fall / Athlete feat may be required for jump tactics.


The tarrasque doesn’t even need your rule to not take any damage from jumping vertically, it’s immune to nonmagical bludgeoning damage.

Storm Giants don't have this immunity.

[Valmark]

The tarrasque doesn’t even need your rule to not take any damage from jumping vertically, it’s immune to nonmagical bludgeoning damage.

From nonmagical attacks that deal bludgeoning damage. From a strict reading a fall should hurt it.

[Damon_Tor]

Rather than plug up this thread with my own build, I made a new thread over here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624030-The-Hextuple-Psychic-Piledriver-Or-how-to-wield-THE-PLANET-as-a-20d6-weapon&p=24846506#post24846506).

It uses Psi-Powered Leap, which isn't actually a leap at all but rather a flight speed. So it bypasses a number of these fiddly RAW quibbles.

[Segev]

My view is RAW though. Jumping is a special kind of movement subject to the mechanics of its rules and I simply implement the mechanics provided.You have yet to show me where the jumping rule say that a high jump ends when you land, rather than when you reach the maximum height it permits. The rules talk about the height to which you can jump, and make no mention of returning to the ground. The rules therefore seem to suggest that your jump is finished at the height to which you choose to jump (maximum determined by your Strength modifier, with possible extension by Strength(Athletics) checks). They are silent on what happens after you've jumped.

The general rules for the game, however, assume that, unless you have a flight speed or other exceptional effect, you fall if unsupported.


Your argument requires you to interject Falling into the Jump rules (which make no mention of Falling).Nope. The falling rules apply after the jump rules are fully applied and concluded.


You are inserting an interpretation into the rules that comes from outside of the rules whereas I am simply following the provided rules.You are adding rules to high jump that are not present. To disprove me, all you need do is quote the rules that say that a high jump ends when you land on the ground. I am following the rules; you are inserting new ones.


My view leads to absolutely zero problems.Arguable, but I don't care to.


Your argument leads to several creatures who can't perform according to their abilities without hurting themselves (with no mention made of that capacity for self harm).They can absolutely use their abilities without hurting themselves. Their long jumps will never hurt themselves, unless they leap off a cliff or something with it. Their high jumps need not be greater than ten feet, and they can also high jump onto branches, ledges, or other things that support them before they fall more than ten feet.

I also noted that your interpretation is a perfectly valid ruling.


Your argument also leads to characters with Belts of Storm Giant Strength whose strength can power leaps but not the landings and Giants who can't jump above 10 feet without catastrophe even though their strength could easily handle the forces involved.That would be a gap in the rules, yes. Your ruling neatly closes it, which is fine. You have yet to support your ruling with an actual quote; asserting "it makes sense" or "the RAW create these problems" doesn't mean that isn't what the RAW state.


Your argument also leads to movement spells (Jump, Otherworldy Leap) that can kill in the performance of what they do (with no mention made of that capacity in their descriptions).I don't see how this invalidates my point.


But yes indeed. The DM is going to rule the way they do. Feather Fall / Athlete feat may be required for jump tactics.Indeed. Or Monk levels.


Storm Giants don't have this immunity.Irrelevant to what the RAW say. DMs may rule however they like.

[JediMaster]

You have yet to show me where the jumping rule say that a high jump ends when you land, rather than when you reach the maximum height it permits. The rules talk about the height to which you can jump, and make no mention of returning to the ground. The rules therefore seem to suggest that your jump is finished at the height to which you choose to jump (maximum determined by your Strength modifier, with possible extension by Strength(Athletics) checks). They are silent on what happens after you've jumped.

The general rules for the game, however, assume that, unless you have a flight speed or other exceptional effect, you fall if unsupported.

Nope. The falling rules apply after the jump rules are fully applied and concluded.

You are adding rules to high jump that are not present. To disprove me, all you need do is quote the rules that say that a high jump ends when you land on the ground. I am following the rules; you are inserting new ones.

Arguable, but I don't care to.

They can absolutely use their abilities without hurting themselves. Their long jumps will never hurt themselves, unless they leap off a cliff or something with it. Their high jumps need not be greater than ten feet, and they can also high jump onto branches, ledges, or other things that support them before they fall more than ten feet.

I also noted that your interpretation is a perfectly valid ruling.

That would be a gap in the rules, yes. Your ruling neatly closes it, which is fine. You have yet to support your ruling with an actual quote; asserting "it makes sense" or "the RAW create these problems" doesn't mean that isn't what the RAW state.

I don't see how this invalidates my point.

Indeed. Or Monk levels.

Irrelevant to what the RAW say. DMs may rule however they like.

The intrinsic weakness of your argument is this.

Your premise is that Falling is absolutely fundamental to Jumping. Yet somehow the rules for Jumping make no mention of Falling. So you inherit an issue of an implausible silence and absence on the matter. Faced with this absence, your interpretation leads to the conclusion that the Designers intentionally wrote bad rules in the case of Jump and have refused to errata them.

My view is that the rules work fine when you follow them as written as a procedure for resolving Jump as a special movement. The Designers did not intentionally omit Falling. Jumping is not Falling.

[Segev]

The intrinsic weakness of your argument is this.

Your premise is that Falling is absolutely fundamental to Jumping.

Incorrect. Falling is not fundamental to jumping.

The only case where falling comes into play is if you are not supported when the jump is over. The jump ends when you reach the distance the jump allows. If you are supported when you reach that point, you do not fall.

[JediMaster]

Incorrect. Falling is not fundamental to jumping.

The only case where falling comes into play is if you are not supported when the jump is over. The jump ends when you reach the distance the jump allows. If you are supported when you reach that point, you do not fall.

The Jump rules specify you pay movement for "each foot you clear on the jump" so no movement cost is paid for the straight downward descent which is after clearing the distance in the case of a long jump or after clearing the height in the case of a high jump.

In your view any descent is accomplished by Falling which is fundamental to any jump with any elevation greater than zero.

And yet somehow no mention is made of Falling. The rules for Jumping even have a section for when jump height is significant and yet fail to bring up Falling and instead point to skill rolls.

[kore]

Unless you're planning on taking Warlock to level 9, let's just throw out Otherworldly Leap, it has a prerequisite of 9th level and per the Eldritch Adept wording: "If the invocation has a prerequisite of any kind, you can choose that invocation only if you're a Warlock who meets the prerequisite.

I know it's not critical to the build, just saying.

[Segev]

The Jump rules specify you pay movement for "each foot you clear on the jump" so no movement cost is paid for the straight downward descent which is after clearing the distance in the case of a long jump or after clearing the height in the case of a high jump.

In your view any descent is accomplished by Falling which is fundamental to any jump with any elevation greater than zero.

And yet somehow no mention is made of Falling. The rules for Jumping even have a section for when jump height is significant and yet fail to bring up Falling and instead point to skill rolls.

The long jumping rules specify that they assume you are remaining relatively level as you jump, and advise an Ability check to resolve the success or failure of a jump that clears a low obstacle, e.g. waist-high. So, no, long jumps do not, inherently, assume falling, because they don't assume you're rising much.

High jumps provide the distance up you can go, based on your Strength mod. They do not say that they take movement to go up and to come back down; they tell you that every foot you move while jumping counts against your movement, and they tell you that the maximum you can jump in a high jump is 3+[strength mod] feet.

I see nothing in there about a jump also having a down component.

Anything about a jump including the down component is your addition to the rules. When the jump is over, you're at the number of feet you used to move into the jump. That may or may not leave you in mid air.

[Zaile]

He contradicts himself here

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/falling-damage-from-jump/

My view corresponds with the latter Tweet. You follow the rules for Jumping when you are jumping.

The nice thing about my view is super strong creatures who are often also larger than medium do not mandatorily fall flat on their face when their powerful capacity to jump takes them further than the measly 10 feet. Jumping and the capacity to land scale with my view.

It boils down to how the DM rules. If the DM mandates a Fall then you might have to pay the Feather Fall tax.

This tracks in every other edition of the game as well. A jump is controlled ascent and descent. A fall is uncontrolled descent (Xanathar's states it's 500'/round which is about equal to a real-world human falling for 6-seconds). A fall greater than the jump height takes damage based on the difference is what Crawford said. There is no "coming down from a high-jump is a fall" in the rules, not even in the Jump spell where fall damage would defiantly apply if that were the case.

Houserule how you will, but RAW and RAI do not support fall damage from high-jumps you can make.

As for the jump spell, your should read it like longstrider, but just for jumping.

"You jump distance is tripled" because jumping is not as simple as "walking speed" means "You calculate your normal max jump distance, then triple it." This would allow the 20 STR fighter under jump w/a 10 foot to running start, then triple his remaining 20-foot distance (before checks required) to 60 feet and not have to dash. Any more than that and yes he would need a check or dash. I do not believe any developer, no matter how high, intended for people to remain in midair between turns like a freeze-frame.

NFL punts have an average 4.5-4.8 second hang time, a football is 13oz, a PC is 50-200 lbs

Michael Jordan's record is 0.93 seconds hang time.

World record long jumps are 27-29 feet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_long_jump_world_record_progression). Here is a great clip of successive records, each less than 1 sec airtime.world record long jump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0WfsAwvTSU). These guys do not have 5e 20 Str.

[MaxWilson]

Storm Giants don't have this immunity.

Fortunately for them, they can cast Feather Fall at will.

[JediMaster]

The long jumping rules specify that they assume you are remaining relatively level as you jump, and advise an Ability check to resolve the success or failure of a jump that clears a low obstacle, e.g. waist-high. So, no, long jumps do not, inherently, assume falling, because they don't assume you're rising much.

Any rise at all requires a descent which for you requires a fall. A fall of less than 10 feet is inconsequential but is still a fall. You can only spend movement to clear the distance in a Long Jump. Descent does not clear distance.

This works okay for your argument but it leaves the question open as to why the Jump rule hides the mandatory Falling that is required for any Jump of non zero height. Again your argument entails that we see the rules for Jump as wilfully ommitting key information.


High jumps provide the distance up you can go, based on your Strength mod. They do not say that they take movement to go up and to come back down; they tell you that every foot you move while jumping counts against your movement, and they tell you that the maximum you can jump in a high jump is 3+[strength mod] feet.

I see nothing in there about a jump also having a down component.

Anything about a jump including the down component is your addition to the rules. When the jump is over, you're at the number of feet you used to move into the jump. That may or may not leave you in mid air.

Not exactly. The rules specify "clear".

What does this phrase in the Jumping rules mean . . . "each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement."?

In the case of a High Jump you only pay for the up component.

There is no movement cost associated with descent as descent does not clear the height.

[Segev]

This tracks in every other edition of the game as well. A jump is controlled ascent and descent. A fall is uncontrolled descent (Xanathar's states it's 500'/round which is about equal to a real-world human falling for 6-seconds). A fall greater than the jump height takes damage based on the difference is what Crawford said. There is no "coming down from a high-jump is a fall" in the rules, not even in the Jump spell where fall damage would defiantly apply if that were the case.

Houserule how you will, but RAW and RAI do not support fall damage from high-jumps you can make.You have not actually quoted any rules that support your assertion about what RAW support. Nor RAI, for that matter; I think the use case they intended high jumping for is clear due to their statement about the maximum height you can reach up to with your hands when you high jump.

I'm not going to fault you for ruling that you can return safely to the ground after a high jump, but I will demand you provide rules citations supporting your claim that it's unambiguously in the RAW if you assert that damage-for-falling-from-your-high-jump is a "house rule."


As for the jump spell, your should read it like longstrider, but just for jumping.But it isn't. Longstrider increases your speed. Jump only increases the distance you can jump.


"You jump distance is tripled" because jumping is not as simple as "walking speed" means "You calculate your normal max jump distance, then triple it." This would allow the 20 STR fighter under jump w/a 10 foot to running start, then triple his remaining 20-foot distance (before checks required) to 60 feet and not have to dash. Any more than that and yes he would need a check or dash. I do not believe any developer, no matter how high, intended for people to remain in midair between turns like a freeze-frame.Regardless of what you think "any developer, no matter how high" might intend, the rules for jumping clearly state that every foot you move while jumping counts against your movement speed.

There are two ways to interpret the rules on jumping and movement speed when you consider jumps longer than you have movement speed for:
You simply can't. If your movement speed is not sufficient, you can't jump that far, no matter what other rules say; or
you continue your jump the next round.

Despite your derision, the "freeze frame" is no more ridiculous than the notion that everybody just stands still, patiently waiting while everyone else moves one at a time. What's actually happening is that it's taking you so long to make that jump that you take more than six seconds to traverse to the end of it, just as you don't just stop and stand still for six seconds after moving 60 feet on a round you dashed because you're 300 feet from melee and you want to get into the fight; you're running the whole time, but the game represents your position on the field over the course of six second snapshots as the point you're at when you use up your movement for each round.

Nowhere in the jump spell does it say that each foot jumped counts as 1/3 of a foot of movement. Thus, the existing rules on movement wrt jumping apply. It certainly doesn't waive the rules on movement while jumping. (If it did, jumping would be even better, since the rules also don't limit how many jumps you can make in a round; jumping would suddenly be infinite movement!)

There is indication in Crawford's tweets about Otherworldly Leap that he thought jumps didn't consume movement, but the rules don't support the assertions he makes in those tweets.


NFL punts have an average 4.5-4.8 second hang time, a football is 13oz, a PC is 50-200 lbs

Michael Jordan's record is 0.93 seconds hang time.

World record long jumps are 27-29 feet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_long_jump_world_record_progression). Here is a great clip of successive records, each less than 1 sec airtime.world record long jump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0WfsAwvTSU). These guys do not have 5e 20 Str.Irrelevant. Not very realistic, sure, but the rules are the rules. You must expend movement to jump. Each foot traveled jumping (horizontally or vertically) counts against your movement allowance. Jumping in D&D 5e very obviously doesn't do a great job of simulating real-world physics. You'd have to come up with your own house rules to make it do so.


Any rise at all requires a descent which for you requires a fall. A fall of less than 10 feet is inconsequential but is still a fall. You can only spend movement to clear the distance in a Long Jump. Descent does not clear distance. Irrelevant.


This works okay for your argument but it leaves the question open as to why the Jump rule hides the mandatory Falling that is required for any Jump of non zero height.It doesn't. There's no hiding. It doesn't speak to it because there is no "mandatory falling." You land at the end of a jump. The jumping rules do address this in the "difficult terrain" bit, adding an additional hazard on top of that of normal falling. But for long jumping, it's irrelevant because you never rise more than 10 feet into the air.


Again your argument entails that we see the rules for Jump as wilfully ommitting key information.Nope. The rules for jumping cover jumping. "What happens if I jump off a cliff?" doesn't require jumping to include rules for falling after you jump; the rules for falling exist, and can be examined. "What happens after I jump 13 feet into the air?" is a question answered with another question: "What do you do when you get up there?" If the answer is, "I jumped up onto a ledge 12 feet above the ground," then the answer to the first question is, "You're standing on the ledge." If the answer is, "I grabbed into a rope dangling 18 feet off the ground," then the answer to the first question is, "You're hanging from a rope with your feet dangling about 13 feet off the ground." If the answer is, "I'm in mid-air, having jumped that high with nothing to jump up to or grab ahold of," then the answer to the first question is, "You fall 13 feet back down to the ground from which you jumped in the first place."

The rules for each situation listed are clear without the jumping rules needing to spell it out explicitly. They each are covered elsewhere, whether in the basic assumptions about ability to stand on things or climb rope, or in the falling section.

No information is omitted, willfully or otherwise.

(Side bar: I actually do think the jumping rules omit key information, just not on this subject. They state you can jump further than the formulas give with an Ability check, but give zero idea as to how much extra distance is what kind of difficulty of check. Is it DC 20 to add 5 feet? DC 10? DC 5? Is it an additional number of feet equal to the check result? But that is, as I said, not relevant to this discussion.)


Not exactly. The rules specify "clear".

What does this phrase in the Jumping rules mean . . . "each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement."? When you "clear" distance while jumping, that's how far you went, whether it's forward or up. Note that long jumps expressly assume there is no meaningful height to the jump. They do not model the 3D extra movement cost of up and down, because the game just isn't getting that nitty-gritty.


In the case of a High Jump you only pay for the up component.Right.


There is no movement cost associated with descent as descent does not clear the height.Conveniently, this seems to be true in the falling rules, so you're right. You clear the height of your high jump, and, if you do not have something supporting you when you're done jumping up to that height, the rules regarding what happens when you're in mid-air and have nothing supporting you take over. i.e. the falling rules.




Side Note: high jumping grants a more generous movement allowance upwards than climbing gives you, so jumping your maximum allowed distance before clinging to a wall and climbing up it normally is good for reducing your time spent scrambling up the wall.

[Zaile]

You have not actually quoted any rules that support your assertion about what RAW support. Nor RAI, for that matter; I think the use case they intended high jumping for is clear due to their statement about the maximum height you can reach up to with your hands when you high jump.

I'm not going to fault you for ruling that you can return safely to the ground after a high jump, but I will demand you provide rules citations supporting your claim that it's unambiguously in the RAW if you assert that damage-for-falling-from-your-high-jump is a "house rule."

I'll grant you the devs probably didn't think jump through enough. No character can easily jump high enough to cause falling damage without magic items or spells. My RAW support is that there is no statement anywhere in the jumping rules in the PHB, DMG, etc. that says "you fall after a high jump of 10 feet or more." The jump spell would have said this as it is the only original way to get more than 8 feet out of a normal high-jump. Can you show me where it specifically says "you fall after a jump"?

Also, the base rules here (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring)specifically state landing prone when you jump onto difficult terrain without a check. This is important as a key part of falling is "you land prone" it specifically does not say that under high jump.

In fact, I'd say this absolutely eliminates that you fall because the rules do NOT say you "land prone after a high-jump of 10 feet or more."


But it isn't. Longstrider increases your speed. Jump only increases the distance you can jump.

Regardless of what you think "any developer, no matter how high" might intend, the rules for jumping clearly state that every foot you move while jumping counts against your movement speed.

There are two ways to interpret the rules on jumping and movement speed when you consider jumps longer than you have movement speed for:
You simply can't. If your movement speed is not sufficient, you can't jump that far, no matter what other rules say; or
you continue your jump the next round.

Despite your derision, the "freeze frame" is no more ridiculous than the notion that everybody just stands still, patiently waiting while everyone else moves one at a time. What's actually happening is that it's taking you so long to make that jump that you take more than six seconds to traverse to the end of it, just as you don't just stop and stand still for six seconds after moving 60 feet on a round you dashed because you're 300 feet from melee and you want to get into the fight; you're running the whole time, but the game represents your position on the field over the course of six second snapshots as the point you're at when you use up your movement for each round.

Nowhere in the jump spell does it say that each foot jumped counts as 1/3 of a foot of movement. Thus, the existing rules on movement wrt jumping apply. It certainly doesn't waive the rules on movement while jumping. (If it did, jumping would be even better, since the rules also don't limit how many jumps you can make in a round; jumping would suddenly be infinite movement!)

There is indication in Crawford's tweets about Otherworldly Leap that he thought jumps didn't consume movement, but the rules don't support the assertions he makes in those tweets.

"Jump distance is tripled" is another way of saying "each foot jumped under this spell counts as 1/3 foot of movement" as "jump distance" = "speed while jumping" which is determined based on STR score and will be less than walking speed without magical assistance.

But let's say you're right. I have a Belt of Storm Giant Str. My long-jump is 25 feet, my speed is 30. Cast jump. My jump distance is 10' start+75' or 85'. At speed 30, I remain in the air for 12-14 seconds (2.5 turns) unless I dash, then I only hang out for 12. Maybe I'm just jumping extra fast? Gonna go with not RAI.

I would treat a character with magic assistance as: without magic, if you move and jump less than your speed, any magical enhancements allow you move the full enhanced distance. Any further, or not enough movement left, you must dash, jump shorter, or can't make the jump. So STR 20, speed 30 can run 10 and long jump 20 feet. As long as you are under that, your benefits from Jump and belt are added and you can get the max distance increases.


Irrelevant. Not very realistic, sure, but the rules are the rules. You must expend movement to jump. Each foot traveled jumping (horizontally or vertically) counts against your movement allowance. Jumping in D&D 5e very obviously doesn't do a great job of simulating real-world physics. You'd have to come up with your own house rules to make it do so.

Actually, it is relevant. See Xanathar's using real-world physics of a humanoid falling 500 feet in 6 seconds. D&D is a fantasy land, but is still based on lots of real-world physics. In fact I'd say everything normal (in our world) not specifically modified in the D&D books/rules should be treated using real-world physics.


Irrelevant.

It doesn't. There's no hiding. It doesn't speak to it because there is no "mandatory falling." You land at the end of a jump. The jumping rules do address this in the "difficult terrain" bit, adding an additional hazard on top of that of normal falling. But for long jumping, it's irrelevant because you never rise more than 10 feet into the air.

Nope. The rules for jumping cover jumping. "What happens if I jump off a cliff?" doesn't require jumping to include rules for falling after you jump; the rules for falling exist, and can be examined. "What happens after I jump 13 feet into the air?" is a question answered with another question: "What do you do when you get up there?" If the answer is, "I jumped up onto a ledge 12 feet above the ground," then the answer to the first question is, "You're standing on the ledge." If the answer is, "I grabbed into a rope dangling 18 feet off the ground," then the answer to the first question is, "You're hanging from a rope with your feet dangling about 13 feet off the ground." If the answer is, "I'm in mid-air, having jumped that high with nothing to jump up to or grab ahold of," then the answer to the first question is, "You fall 13 feet back down to the ground from which you jumped in the first place."

Nowhere in the rules does it say you fall after a jump. As for jumping down, you can normally only jump 8' up max without checks, so the falling damage starts at 10. According to Crawford tweet we referenced, you can jump down your jump distance without taking damage. Every 10' more than your jump distance would be 1d6 falling.


The rules for each situation listed are clear without the jumping rules needing to spell it out explicitly. They each are covered elsewhere, whether in the basic assumptions about ability to stand on things or climb rope, or in the falling section.

No information is omitted, willfully or otherwise.

(Side bar: I actually do think the jumping rules omit key information, just not on this subject. They state you can jump further than the formulas give with an Ability check, but give zero idea as to how much extra distance is what kind of difficulty of check. Is it DC 20 to add 5 feet? DC 10? DC 5? Is it an additional number of feet equal to the check result? But that is, as I said, not relevant to this discussion.)

This is actually where a falling clause would be if the devs intended to take damage from jumps over 10'.

Also, why are some people so dang set on people always taking damage from magical jumps or hanging in mid-air when the rules are, at worst, unclear? Why are we being super lawyer-y with jump as opposed to fly or longstrider or Shapechange into something you've never seen before? Can't Hulk have nice things when we have so many Magnetos and Dr. Stranges?

[JediMaster]

Segev, Long jumps can definitely exceed 10 feet in height.

You only need 2 of the following 4 to do so (Jump spell, Step of the Wind, Boots of Striding and Springing, and High Strength) so it is not even hard to get to 15+ feet.

The height cleared is up to 1/4 the horizontal distance vector.

So the rules for Long Jump do not include any mention of Falling and include measures for dealing with Jumping when height is relevant (that does not include Falling).

So a 12 Strength Fighter 1/Monk 2 with Mobility and Step of the Wind can Long Jump for 72 feet and clear 18 feet vertically. I Long Jump over my 5 foot tall opponent and clear 18 feet and attack him as he passes under me (attacks with forced pull movements like Lightning Lure come tactically into play here).

So you cannot handwave away the complete omission of Falling from the Long Jump rules as Long Jumps can easily exceed 10 feet in height.

So are Long Jumps exempt from Falling? Or are you conceding that any Long Jump of any non zero height is going to require a Fall to bring that Jumper down to the ground in your argument.

I agree with you that performing a Jump semantically involves landing on one feet. I understand "clear" in relation to the horizontal vector of the Long Jump or the vertical vector of the High Jump. If "clear" is not tied directly to those vectors then you can freely move like Flying as Jump is not otherwise restricted. You pay for the movement directly along those vectors (that is what "clear" means). The height of the Long Jump is not paid for. You simply have 1/4 distance in height should you need it.

Long Jumps with any height at all mandatorily require Falls in your argument.

For my argument, landing on one's feet is simply alowed as part of the Jump and does not cost movement once you "clear" the vector with your expended movement. Storm Giants can High Jump more than 10 feet without catastrophe.

[Segev]

I'll grant you the devs probably didn't think jump through enough. No character can easily jump high enough to cause falling damage without magic items or spells. My RAW support is that there is no statement anywhere in the jumping rules in the PHB, DMG, etc. that says "you fall after a high jump of 10 feet or more." The jump spell would have said this as it is the only original way to get more than 8 feet out of a normal high-jump. Can you show me where it specifically says "you fall after a jump"?

Also, the base rules here (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring)specifically state landing prone when you jump onto difficult terrain without a check. This is important as a key part of falling is "you land prone" it specifically does not say that under high jump.

In fact, I'd say this absolutely eliminates that you fall because the rules do NOT say you "land prone after a high-jump of 10 feet or more." The rules don't need to say that. The falling rules say that. The falling rules do not say that you land prone if you fail a check when you land in difficult terrain. This is why the jump rules must specify that. The jump rules don't need to specify what happens when you fall because the fall rules specify that. The jump rules do not say you come back down after you reach your high jump's apex because they don't need to: you either have a means of supporting yourself, or the falling rules say you come back down.

You're inventing a lot of rules that don't exist, here. Which is fine; all the rulings you want to add are sensible and work. They just are rulings and house rules; the rules themselves are minimalist, here. And they don't say you come back down safely from a high jump. They do say that if you fall from higher than ten feet, you take dice of damage, and if you take damage from this, you land prone.


"Jump distance is tripled" is another way of saying "each foot jumped under this spell counts as 1/3 foot of movement" as "jump distance" = "speed while jumping" which is determined based on STR score and will be less than walking speed without magical assistance. Wrong. Jump distance is not a speed. It is a distance. Your land speed is consumed while jumping on a 1 foot for 1 foot basis. The jumping rules say so. Tripling your jumping distance changes the equation for your long jumping distance from "Strength" to "Strength x3" and your high jumping distance from "3 + StrMod" to "(3 + StrMod) x3." It does not increase your land speed, nor change the part that says that each foot you move while jumping consumes a foot of your normal movement.

It would say that it changed that if it did; they're pretty specific about how movement types alter your move speed.


But let's say you're right. I have a Belt of Storm Giant Str. My long-jump is 25 feet, my speed is 30. Cast jump. My jump distance is 10' start+75' or 85'. At speed 30, I remain in the air for 12-14 seconds (2.5 turns) unless I dash, then I only hang out for 12. Maybe I'm just jumping extra fast? Gonna go with not RAI. I don't disagree that it's a little silly. But the rules are the rules. You're free to rule differently; I am not telling you you're wrong for doing so. I am telling you that your ruling is not the one and only interpretation of the RAW, and in some cases is actually not following the RAW at all. This is fine.

As you said, the jump rules maybe could have been thought out more. But they really were just giving a framework; rule away. The only reason I harp on RAW vs. rulings in this specific thread is because the build being discussed makes specific use of the falling rules to its advantage. Therefore, knowing the default - or at least the most basic reading - of the RAW is important for baseline discussion. And DMs are far more hesitant to rule in softenings of possible consequences when the consequences are not only brought about by the player's standard tactics, but are deliberately inflicting what is potentially being ruled away for them on others.

The sure way to avoid this is to get at least 4 levels of Monk. Failing that, the Athlete feat and a willingness to take a d6 of damage is fine, too; it's not the damage you're seeking, but the ability to force somebody you've grappled to be prone. If you go prone, as well, 5 ft. of movement to stand isn't so bad.


I would treat a character with magic assistance as: without magic, if you move and jump less than your speed, any magical enhancements allow you move the full enhanced distance. Any further, or not enough movement left, you must dash, jump shorter, or can't make the jump. So STR 20, speed 30 can run 10 and long jump 20 feet. As long as you are under that, your benefits from Jump and belt are added and you can get the max distance increases. That's certainly your right to rule that way as a DM. It's rather generous, and I'm playing a character that would love and abuse the heck out of that. I should note that it makes jump flat-out better than expeditious retreat, though: who needs to dash when you can triple your movement by just long-jumping everywhere? If you have a 10 Strength, you jump fifteen feet (3x half your running long jump distance as a standing long-jump), using up 5 ft. of movement (by your ruling), and then jump again, having moved at least ten feet, a full 30 feet (using up another 10 feet), then repeat for another 30 feet (using up another 10 feet) and then jump another 15 feet to use up your last 5 ft. of movement. You've moved 90 feet thanks to jump, not used your bonus action, and don't need Concentration. You could add expeditious retreat to it to dash as a bonus action and move a full 180 ft., but jump is the spell you want first if you want fast movement, not expeditious retreat, by your ruling.


Actually, it is relevant. See Xanathar's using real-world physics of a humanoid falling 500 feet in 6 seconds. D&D is a fantasy land, but is still based on lots of real-world physics. In fact I'd say everything normal (in our world) not specifically modified in the D&D books/rules should be treated using real-world physics.Except that the D&D rules cover jumping distance and movement speed, and they either involve long hang-times if you have a slow speed, or your speed caps your jumping distance no matter how far jump or step of the wind or your Strength score say you can jump. You can house rule it to work differently, and again, that's fine, but the rules do actually spell out how jumping interacts with your movement allowance. "That doesn't make sense" doesn't change what the RAW say, even if it provides good reason to change it if it bothers you.


Nowhere in the rules does it say you fall after a jump.It does, however, say that you fall if you are unsupported. If you engage in a high jump, then don't grab onto anything and didn't jump up onto anything, you are unsupported. The rules say you fall.

What the rules do NOT say is that you come back down to the ground without applying the falling rules when you engage in a high jump.


As for jumping down, you can normally only jump 8' up max without checks, so the falling damage starts at 10.Correct, but irrelevant.


According to Crawford tweet we referenced, you can jump down your jump distance without taking damage.Crawford is adding that rule. You are free to add it, too. I even agree that it makes sense and doesn't likely cause any problems. It is not, however, in the rulebooks. And you cannot count on a given DM agreeing with that ruling, especially if you plan to be using it to avoid consequences of deliberately jumping up high enough to cause the person you're grappling to suffer fall damage and be knocked prone.


Every 10' more than your jump distance would be 1d6 falling. By his ruling, yes. The RAW in the PHB, DMG, and other rulebooks do not say that anywhere. It is a perfectly fine ruling. It is not, however, in the RAW. Nor does it have to be to be perfectly acceptable. But that does mean we should be conscious that you cannot expect DMs to always agree with and run with that ruling. DMs who do not use that ruling are not breaking any rules nor changing the rules. Because the DM's ruling can have just as much support from the RAW as Crawford's ruling and say that you do, in fact, take the falling damage from your own high jump.


This is actually where a falling clause would be if the devs intended to take damage from jumps over 10'.You have provided no evidence, citation, nor indication of this, other than asserting your opinion as fact. The RAW tell you how high you can jump with a high jump. The RAW tell you what happens if you fall from a given height. The RAW do not say that you come back down from a high jump as part of the jump, because they don't expect that to be what you're trying to do. If you engage a high jump and are unsupported at the end of it, then there ARE rules for what happens: they're in the falling section. A DM can rule that a high jump includes the ability to come back down, or that your jumping height is subtracted from fall heights if you deliberately jump down. But that doesn't make it part of the RAW.

The RAW simply state that a high jump gets you up to a particular height. What happens after that depends entirely on what you do when you get there. The RAW have rules for what happens if you're ever unsupported in mid-air. If you perform a high jump and leave yourself unsupported in mid-air, those rules apply just as much as if you performed a long jump off a cliff and left yourself unsupported in mid-air. A DM may rule differently, based on his own preferences, sense of verisimilitude, or for any other reason, but you cannot assume that all DMs will rule the way you assert. I certainly do not assume all DMs will rule the way I am describing; I am simply describing the simplest application of the RAW as I see it. I have, in my own game, permitted jumping down without damage if the character has a high jump that can get them that height and they deliberately jumped down. My own treatment of it is that you take the full damage for a fall if it exceeds your high jump distance, though, on the basis that you don't just reduce the distance you fell, and if it exceeds your ability, you just hit hard and can't absorb it properly. (Monks have a class feature, after all, that addresses this.)


Also, why are some people so dang set on people always taking damage from magical jumps or hanging in mid-air when the rules are, at worst, unclear? Why are we being super lawyer-y with jump as opposed to fly or longstrider or Shapechange into something you've never seen before? Can't Hulk have nice things when we have so many Magnetos and Dr. Stranges?Of course he can. Nobody is being mean to martials, here. Under normal circumstances, if you're jumping super-high, you're not doing so just to land back where you started, so this wouldn't come up, anyway. Your super high jump will not inflict damage when you use it to get to a higher location. Your super long jump never will, unless you do something that would have caused you damage without the super jumping ability.


Segev, Long jumps can definitely exceed 10 feet in height.

You only need 2 of the following 4 to do so (Jump spell, Step of the Wind, Boots of Striding and Springing, and High Strength) so it is not even hard to get to 15+ feet.

The height cleared is up to 1/4 the horizontal distance vector.Here, the RAW are explicit regarding long jumping: "This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or a chasm. At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it." (PHB p. 182)

So, yes, you can get it up that high. No, unless you deliberately make the DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to get that height, the rules assume you do not jump that high as part of the long jump. It says so, right there in the part I quoted.

Note that nothing in the rules says you do not take falling damage, either, from doing so, but I also agree that few DMs would go hunting for the falling rules at this point.

Notably, this height is always equal to or less than the height you could jump with a high jump, unless you have a Strength down around 5 or lower.

Anyway, the only reason this comes up, really, is because the thread wants to use jumping up above 10 feet to inflict falling damage on a grapple victim and use that to knock him prone as part of movement, no action required. Thus, being aware that the DM might actually not be so forgiving as to waive the falling rules for your character in such a situation is important.


So the rules for Long Jump do not include any mention of Falling and include measures for dealing with Jumping when height is relevant (that does not include Falling).They include measures for judging how high you can jump. Whether the DM rules that coming down is "falling" or not is up to him. I agree: most probably wouldn't for a long jump even if it clears more than ten feet of height. And you could make this argument with a DM to try to get your high jump wrestling move approved to not hurt your character. All I'm saying is: "don't count on it." A DM who insists on fall damage applying to your character as well as his grapple-buddy is not breaking the rules nor changing them; he's making a ruling that is just as well-supported by the RAW as yours. Moreso, in fact, because he's not inventing extra rules to cover the situation. Not that there's anything wrong with your extra rules. They're just not something you can assume all DMs will be using, because they're not part of the RAW that everybody has the same access to.



So you cannot handwave away the complete omission of Falling from the Long Jump rules as Long Jumps can easily exceed 10 feet in height.I'm not hand-waving them away. I'm saying that it's up to the DM whether he decides they apply falling damage when they exceed 10 feet. Nowhere in the rules does it say that jumping negates falling distance/damage. And you ARE coming down from a height.


So are Long Jumps exempt from Falling? Or are you conceding that any Long Jump of any non zero height is going to require a Fall to bring that Jumper down to the ground in your argument.Neither. Or, rather, I never said that long jumping that included height would not involve falling.

You seem to be trying to use "but that doesn't make sense!" and "that's just not fair!" to argue that the RAW say what your ruling does. That's bad logic. I agree that your rulings are perfectly good ones, and recommend you use them if you like them. They do not, to my knowledge, have too many bad consequences, and what ones they have are only "bad" if you have concerns about using movement and jumping rules for free damage and prone status to enemies you grapple, consequence-free.

The objection I have is your insistence that your ruling is the rule as written. It isn't. It's an interpretation and, in some cases (where you give "jump down distance" equal to high jump distance, for instance), it is literally adding rules that aren't there. Again, this is fine, but you cannot assume that all DMs will use the rules you're literally making up to cover the situation in a way you find satisfactory.



Long Jumps with any height at all mandatorily require Falls in your argument. Indeed.


For my argument, landing on one's feet is simply alowed as part of the Jump and does not cost movement once you "clear" the vector with your expended movement. Storm Giants can High Jump more than 10 feet without catastrophe.It's not an argument, it's a ruling. The RAW do not say that landing after a jump does not involve falling. Your ruling is perfectly reasonable. It is not, however, what the RAW explicitly state, and therefore you cannot expect that DMs will agree with nor use your ruling, nor base a theoretical build in a web forum meant for possible implementation in any number of games on your particular ruling.

This is why it's important to consider mitigation tactics for the worst case scenario - that is, that you take damage and fall prone, yourself, if you jump up higher than ten feet with the intent of inflicting these on the person you've grappled - is what the DM rules. Mitigation includes Athlete to make getting up from prone easier, and possibly at least 4 Monk levels for Slow Fall, which literally negates damage from falling.

[Hytheter]

The jump rules are for going up. They make no comment on what happens afterwards - they just say this is how high you can go. Declaring that the following descent is part of the jump is not supported by the text. And why would it be? The intended use case of a jump is obviously to jump up onto something; you wouldn't normally need to jump up and down on the spot. And once you've jumped as high as you can, if you aren't supported, what happens? It is obvious that you would fall back down. If you saw someone fall after a jump, you wouldn't say they are jumping - they have jumped, and now they are falling. That's where the falling rules come in. The jump rules are for going up, and the falling rules are for coming down.

Now, I do agree that if you can jump up that high you should logically be able to land safely. But that's not what the rules say.


Ah.

Given that that's a class feature, it probably should set a ceiling for how effective the Strength(Athletics) roll the PHB says the DM may ask of a player to determine how far the player may exceed his Strength score as a jumping distance.

Well, anyone who would otherwise let players straight up add the result of an athletics check in feet to their jump height was probably being overly generous. :P

[Zaile]

The rules don't need to say that. The falling rules say that. The falling rules do not say that you land prone if you fail a check when you land in difficult terrain. This is why the jump rules must specify that. The jump rules don't need to specify what happens when you fall because the fall rules specify that. The jump rules do not say you come back down after you reach your high jump's apex because they don't need to: you either have a means of supporting yourself, or the falling rules say you come back down.

You're inventing a lot of rules that don't exist, here. Which is fine; all the rulings you want to add are sensible and work. They just are rulings and house rules; the rules themselves are minimalist, here. And they don't say you come back down safely from a high jump. They do say that if you fall from higher than ten feet, you take dice of damage, and if you take damage from this, you land prone.

Wrong. Jump distance is not a speed. It is a distance. Your land speed is consumed while jumping on a 1 foot for 1 foot basis. The jumping rules say so. Tripling your jumping distance changes the equation for your long jumping distance from "Strength" to "Strength x3" and your high jumping distance from "3 + StrMod" to "(3 + StrMod) x3." It does not increase your land speed, nor change the part that says that each foot you move while jumping consumes a foot of your normal movement.

It would say that it changed that if it did; they're pretty specific about how movement types alter your move speed.

I don't disagree that it's a little silly. But the rules are the rules. You're free to rule differently; I am not telling you you're wrong for doing so. I am telling you that your ruling is not the one and only interpretation of the RAW, and in some cases is actually not following the RAW at all. This is fine.

As you said, the jump rules maybe could have been thought out more. But they really were just giving a framework; rule away. The only reason I harp on RAW vs. rulings in this specific thread is because the build being discussed makes specific use of the falling rules to its advantage. Therefore, knowing the default - or at least the most basic reading - of the RAW is important for baseline discussion. And DMs are far more hesitant to rule in softenings of possible consequences when the consequences are not only brought about by the player's standard tactics, but are deliberately inflicting what is potentially being ruled away for them on others.

The sure way to avoid this is to get at least 4 levels of Monk. Failing that, the Athlete feat and a willingness to take a d6 of damage is fine, too; it's not the damage you're seeking, but the ability to force somebody you've grappled to be prone. If you go prone, as well, 5 ft. of movement to stand isn't so bad.

That's certainly your right to rule that way as a DM. It's rather generous, and I'm playing a character that would love and abuse the heck out of that. I should note that it makes jump flat-out better than expeditious retreat, though: who needs to dash when you can triple your movement by just long-jumping everywhere? If you have a 10 Strength, you jump fifteen feet (3x half your running long jump distance as a standing long-jump), using up 5 ft. of movement (by your ruling), and then jump again, having moved at least ten feet, a full 30 feet (using up another 10 feet), then repeat for another 30 feet (using up another 10 feet) and then jump another 15 feet to use up your last 5 ft. of movement. You've moved 90 feet thanks to jump, not used your bonus action, and don't need Concentration. You could add expeditious retreat to it to dash as a bonus action and move a full 180 ft., but jump is the spell you want first if you want fast movement, not expeditious retreat, by your ruling.

Except that the D&D rules cover jumping distance and movement speed, and they either involve long hang-times if you have a slow speed, or your speed caps your jumping distance no matter how far jump or step of the wind or your Strength score say you can jump. You can house rule it to work differently, and again, that's fine, but the rules do actually spell out how jumping interacts with your movement allowance. "That doesn't make sense" doesn't change what the RAW say, even if it provides good reason to change it if it bothers you.

It does, however, say that you fall if you are unsupported. If you engage in a high jump, then don't grab onto anything and didn't jump up onto anything, you are unsupported. The rules say you fall.

What the rules do NOT say is that you come back down to the ground without applying the falling rules when you engage in a high jump.

Correct, but irrelevant.

Crawford is adding that rule. You are free to add it, too. I even agree that it makes sense and doesn't likely cause any problems. It is not, however, in the rulebooks. And you cannot count on a given DM agreeing with that ruling, especially if you plan to be using it to avoid consequences of deliberately jumping up high enough to cause the person you're grappling to suffer fall damage and be knocked prone.

By his ruling, yes. The RAW in the PHB, DMG, and other rulebooks do not say that anywhere. It is a perfectly fine ruling. It is not, however, in the RAW. Nor does it have to be to be perfectly acceptable. But that does mean we should be conscious that you cannot expect DMs to always agree with and run with that ruling. DMs who do not use that ruling are not breaking any rules nor changing the rules. Because the DM's ruling can have just as much support from the RAW as Crawford's ruling and say that you do, in fact, take the falling damage from your own high jump.

You have provided no evidence, citation, nor indication of this, other than asserting your opinion as fact. The RAW tell you how high you can jump with a high jump. The RAW tell you what happens if you fall from a given height. The RAW do not say that you come back down from a high jump as part of the jump, because they don't expect that to be what you're trying to do. If you engage a high jump and are unsupported at the end of it, then there ARE rules for what happens: they're in the falling section. A DM can rule that a high jump includes the ability to come back down, or that your jumping height is subtracted from fall heights if you deliberately jump down. But that doesn't make it part of the RAW.

The RAW simply state that a high jump gets you up to a particular height. What happens after that depends entirely on what you do when you get there. The RAW have rules for what happens if you're ever unsupported in mid-air. If you perform a high jump and leave yourself unsupported in mid-air, those rules apply just as much as if you performed a long jump off a cliff and left yourself unsupported in mid-air. A DM may rule differently, based on his own preferences, sense of verisimilitude, or for any other reason, but you cannot assume that all DMs will rule the way you assert. I certainly do not assume all DMs will rule the way I am describing; I am simply describing the simplest application of the RAW as I see it. I have, in my own game, permitted jumping down without damage if the character has a high jump that can get them that height and they deliberately jumped down. My own treatment of it is that you take the full damage for a fall if it exceeds your high jump distance, though, on the basis that you don't just reduce the distance you fell, and if it exceeds your ability, you just hit hard and can't absorb it properly. (Monks have a class feature, after all, that addresses this.)

Of course he can. Nobody is being mean to martials, here. Under normal circumstances, if you're jumping super-high, you're not doing so just to land back where you started, so this wouldn't come up, anyway. Your super high jump will not inflict damage when you use it to get to a higher location. Your super long jump never will, unless you do something that would have caused you damage without the super jumping ability.

Here, the RAW are explicit regarding long jumping: "This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or a chasm. At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it." (PHB p. 182)

So, yes, you can get it up that high. No, unless you deliberately make the DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to get that height, the rules assume you do not jump that high as part of the long jump. It says so, right there in the part I quoted.

Note that nothing in the rules says you do not take falling damage, either, from doing so, but I also agree that few DMs would go hunting for the falling rules at this point.

Notably, this height is always equal to or less than the height you could jump with a high jump, unless you have a Strength down around 5 or lower.

Anyway, the only reason this comes up, really, is because the thread wants to use jumping up above 10 feet to inflict falling damage on a grapple victim and use that to knock him prone as part of movement, no action required. Thus, being aware that the DM might actually not be so forgiving as to waive the falling rules for your character in such a situation is important.

They include measures for judging how high you can jump. Whether the DM rules that coming down is "falling" or not is up to him. I agree: most probably wouldn't for a long jump even if it clears more than ten feet of height. And you could make this argument with a DM to try to get your high jump wrestling move approved to not hurt your character. All I'm saying is: "don't count on it." A DM who insists on fall damage applying to your character as well as his grapple-buddy is not breaking the rules nor changing them; he's making a ruling that is just as well-supported by the RAW as yours. Moreso, in fact, because he's not inventing extra rules to cover the situation. Not that there's anything wrong with your extra rules. They're just not something you can assume all DMs will be using, because they're not part of the RAW that everybody has the same access to.


I'm not hand-waving them away. I'm saying that it's up to the DM whether he decides they apply falling damage when they exceed 10 feet. Nowhere in the rules does it say that jumping negates falling distance/damage. And you ARE coming down from a height.

Neither. Or, rather, I never said that long jumping that included height would not involve falling.

You seem to be trying to use "but that doesn't make sense!" and "that's just not fair!" to argue that the RAW say what your ruling does. That's bad logic. I agree that your rulings are perfectly good ones, and recommend you use them if you like them. They do not, to my knowledge, have too many bad consequences, and what ones they have are only "bad" if you have concerns about using movement and jumping rules for free damage and prone status to enemies you grapple, consequence-free.

The objection I have is your insistence that your ruling is the rule as written. It isn't. It's an interpretation and, in some cases (where you give "jump down distance" equal to high jump distance, for instance), it is literally adding rules that aren't there. Again, this is fine, but you cannot assume that all DMs will use the rules you're literally making up to cover the situation in a way you find satisfactory.


Indeed.

It's not an argument, it's a ruling. The RAW do not say that landing after a jump does not involve falling. Your ruling is perfectly reasonable. It is not, however, what the RAW explicitly state, and therefore you cannot expect that DMs will agree with nor use your ruling, nor base a theoretical build in a web forum meant for possible implementation in any number of games on your particular ruling.

This is why it's important to consider mitigation tactics for the worst case scenario - that is, that you take damage and fall prone, yourself, if you jump up higher than ten feet with the intent of inflicting these on the person you've grappled - is what the DM rules. Mitigation includes Athlete to make getting up from prone easier, and possibly at least 4 Monk levels for Slow Fall, which literally negates damage from falling.

I appreciate the back and forth @Segev

On the jump spell and similar. As you said, it is absolute silliness to stay in the air for 3 turns (16 seconds). You make a good RAW argument, but you are going to have a hard time selling me that the devs had 16 seconds in the air in a jump as RAI when they gave us the magic enhancements to jump. By the time these things come online, we have Fly.

For falling damage and high-jumps, I want to see if we are both reading too much into things. My basis is: Unless the rules specifically state something happens, it's doesn't and is subject to Rule 0, and even then...

Just to quote all the official falling rules:

PHB 182/83

Falling
At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning
damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.
The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking
damage from the fall.

***My point is that the prone condition is part of a fall. It is mentioned in jumping, but only in landing on difficult terrain after you fail a check. It does not have this clause after the high-jump section below. Because it does not specifically state you do, you do not fall and land prone RAW.

High jump
When you make a high jump. you leap
into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength
modifier ifyou move at least 10 feet on foot immediately
before the jump. When you make a standing high jump,
you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each
foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In
some circumstances. your DM might allow you to make
a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you
normally can

You can extend your arms half your height above
yourself during the jump. Thus. you can reach above
you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 x height

***If the developers were to put in the rules that you fall if you high jump over 10 feet, this is the exact spot it would go, it is not there. Because it is not there, it is not RAW or RAI. Also, falling you "land prone unless you avoid taking damage" clause is not here either. If the falling after a high jump 10+ was a hard rule, it would say something like "you fall and land prone if you high-jump over 10 feet and don't reach a ledge or catch onto a handhold." I contend that because there is no such clause there is no such rule. When you jump you control your body going up and have time to brace coming down. When the floor falls from under you, you are surprised and don't have the response to brace coming down like if you jumped.

DMG - nothing in there, surprisingly

Xanatar's

Page 77. The only additional rules here are for flying creatures and falls from "great heights" which is where we get the real-life terminal velocity distance of 500 feet over 6 seconds. No mention of jumps.

I'l add that by the time the book came out (2017), there had been multiple questions to Sage and Crawford about jumping super high and falling. His 2015 tweets (2 years before Xanathars) should be taken as RAW now since they could have made a different ruling in Xanathar's but did not.

Also the basic rules (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring#Movement) on their own website have not added this.

Tasha's
Tasha's gave us rules on falling onto a creature and falling into water, but still no clear statement you take falling damage after a high-jump over 10 feet. We are 5 years and millions more questions removed from Crawford's tweet.

Based on all that. I think it perfectly reasonable to say RAW and RAI, you do not take falling damage as you come down from a high jump over 10 unless you come down further than the jump was high. Based on the falling onto a creature rules you can choose to (or the DM can force you to) take the damage and cause half of it to another creature based on the above.

[Gignere]

I appreciate the back and forth @Segev

On the jump spell and similar. As you said, it is absolute silliness to stay in the air for 3 turns (16 seconds). You make a good RAW argument, but you are going to have a hard time selling me that the devs had 16 seconds in the air in a jump as RAI when they gave us the magic enhancements to jump. By the time these things come online, we have Fly.

For falling damage and high-jumps, I want to see if we are both reading too much into things. My basis is: Unless the rules specifically state something happens, it's doesn't and is subject to Rule 0, and even then...

Just to quote all the official falling rules:

PHB 182/83

Falling
At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning
damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.
The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking
damage from the fall.

***My point is that the prone condition is part of a fall. It is mentioned in jumping, but only in landing on difficult terrain after you fail a check. It does not have this clause after the high-jump section below. Because it does not specifically state you do, you do not fall and land prone RAW.

High jump
When you make a high jump. you leap
into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength
modifier ifyou move at least 10 feet on foot immediately
before the jump. When you make a standing high jump,
you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each
foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In
some circumstances. your DM might allow you to make
a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you
normally can

You can extend your arms half your height above
yourself during the jump. Thus. you can reach above
you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 x height

***If the developers were to put in the rules that you fall if you high jump over 10 feet, this is the exact spot it would go, it is not there. Because it is not there, it is not RAW or RAI. Also, falling you "land prone unless you avoid taking damage" clause is not here either. If the falling after a high jump 10+ was a hard rule, it would say something like "you fall and land prone if you high-jump over 10 feet and don't reach a ledge or catch onto a handhold." I contend that because there is no such clause there is no such rule. When you jump you control your body going up and have time to brace coming down. When the floor falls from under you, you are surprised and don't have the response to brace coming down like if you jumped.

DMG - nothing in there, surprisingly

Xanatar's

Page 77. The only additional rules here are for flying creatures and falls from "great heights" which is where we get the real-life terminal velocity distance of 500 feet over 6 seconds. No mention of jumps.

I'l add that by the time the book came out (2017), there had been multiple questions to Sage and Crawford about jumping super high and falling. His 2015 tweets (2 years before Xanathars) should be taken as RAW now since they could have made a different ruling in Xanathar's but did not.

Also the basic rules (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring#Movement) on their own website have not added this.

Tasha's
Tasha's gave us rules on falling onto a creature and falling into water, but still no clear statement you take falling damage after a high-jump over 10 feet. We are 5 years and millions more questions removed from Crawford's tweet.

Based on all that. I think it perfectly reasonable to say RAW and RAI, you do not take falling damage as you come down from a high jump over 10 unless you come down further than the jump was high. Based on the falling onto a creature rules you can choose to (or the DM can force you to) take the damage and cause half of it to another creature based on the above.

Why would falling on a creature cause you to take damage but falling on the ground doesn’t using the same high jump? Don’t you think that is inconsistent?

Also what happens when you try to land on the creature but the creature makes it’s save to avoid taking damage from you? Technically you end up in the exact situation as high jump up and down but now you do take damage and full damage at that?

Also the text in Tasha’s is any falling damage is split between the two creatures but by your ruling that damage is zero when you are executing a high jump suplex. So in your goal to make nice things for fighting classes you actually lowered their damage.

[Segev]

I appreciate the back and forth @SegevThank you. I also appreciate a conversation and/or debate that addresses points and tries to achieve mutual understanding (if not, necessarily, agreement).

On the jump spell and similar. As you said, it is absolute silliness to stay in the air for 3 turns (16 seconds). You make a good RAW argument, but you are going to have a hard time selling me that the devs had 16 seconds in the air in a jump as RAI when they gave us the magic enhancements to jump. By the time these things come online, we have Fly.

For falling damage and high-jumps, I want to see if we are both reading too much into things. My basis is: Unless the rules specifically state something happens, it's doesn't and is subject to Rule 0, and even then...


***My point is that the prone condition is part of a fall. It is mentioned in jumping, but only in landing on difficult terrain after you fail a check. It does not have this clause after the high-jump section below. Because it does not specifically state you do, you do not fall and land prone RAW.High jumping is still jumping; I suppose it comes down to whether the "landing in difficult terrain" thing is a general jumping rule or a long jumping rule. I had assumed it was general.


***If the developers were to put in the rules that you fall if you high jump over 10 feet, this is the exact spot it would go, it is not there. Because it is not there, it is not RAW or RAI. Also, falling you "land prone unless you avoid taking damage" clause is not here either. If the falling after a high jump 10+ was a hard rule, it would say something like "you fall and land prone if you high-jump over 10 feet and don't reach a ledge or catch onto a handhold." I contend that because there is no such clause there is no such rule. When you jump you control your body going up and have time to brace coming down. When the floor falls from under you, you are surprised and don't have the response to brace coming down like if you jumped.As you said, if something happens that is particular to the rule in question, it should say so. Notably, at no point does it state that you come down from a high jump. Now, this doesn't mean I'm claiming that you jump up and hover! It does mean that the high jump rules end when you reach the maximum height you can jump. The jump is over at that point. This is why the rules for high jumping cover absolutely nothing of what happens after you've reached that point, save a note on how high you can reach if you're jumping up to grab something.

Because the rules for high jumping are silent on what happens after you reach the top of the jump, it is my argument that what happens next is controlled by the general rules for the game. If you've grabbed something, you're hanging from it. If you've landed on a ledge or something, you're standing on the ledge. If you jumped up and triggered your giant eagle's readied action to fly in and grab you, you're in its talons as it flies off. If you jumped up into the air with nothing around you, you're now unsupported in mid-air. The rules for that last case are that you fall. The rules for falling now apply.

It is precisely because the rules for high jumping are silent on what happens after you've jumped up to that height - because the rules assume the jump is over at that point - that the rules for falling apply.

This is also why it's arguable that a long jump that carries you more than 10 feet in the air doesn't use the falling rules - it actually does tell you what happens when you come back down. I only say it's "arguable," though, because nothing in the jumping rules say that falling rules don't also apply. So, DMs need to make a call.


I'l add that by the time the book came out (2017), there had been multiple questions to Sage and Crawford about jumping super high and falling. His 2015 tweets (2 years before Xanathars) should be taken as RAW now since they could have made a different ruling in Xanathar's but did not.His tweets are not the RAW because they aren't written in the rules. They tell us how he'd rule, and they're good advice, but they're not part of the rulebooks; if they were meant to be, they would have been added to, say, Xanathar's Guide.


Based on all that. I think it perfectly reasonable to say RAW and RAI, you do not take falling damage as you come down from a high jump over 10 unless you come down further than the jump was high. Based on the falling onto a creature rules you can choose to (or the DM can force you to) take the damage and cause half of it to another creature based on the above.No, it is not perfectly reasonable to say that that is what the RAW say, any more than it is reasonable to say that the RAW say you can play a zombie just because zombie rules are in the MM and you can come up with very well-justified reasons to rule that a zombie is playable.

The RAW say what they say. That is the definition of "rules as written." You can make an argument for RAI. I could make counter-arguments for it, too, but I don't care to. I am not saying your rulings are bad. I am strictly arguing that you cannot make a claim that something is in the RAW just because you think it so very, very reasonable. The RAW are what they are. In 5e, that doesn't carry a ton of weight, because "rulings, not rules" is the guiding philosophy. But it is important to recognize that the RAW do not actively support being able to high jump over 10 feet and not take damage just because you initiated the jump. It's something a DM may rule. But a DM may equally reasonably (perhaps even more reasonably if he's a stickler for the RAW) rule otherwise. And in any sort of guide, you have to at a minimum address the most probable reading(s) of the RAW. If you wish to also address common rulings and house rules that "make sense," that'll make for a better guide, but you must not treat a ruling you think "is so good it should be what the RAW are" as if it were the RAW and were therefore what every DM would rule with by default.

[Meichrob7]

So I actually had a similar idea to this when reading Tasha’s and got the opportunity to play in a gestalt game (you get the class features of two classes every level, but only the hit dice and asi of one) and decided to go barbarian and monk.

Haven’t gotten to level 3 yet but the subclasses im planning to pick are the beast barbarian, for all this juicy grapple stuff but also to make lots of attacks (specifically 5 per round if I have extra attack, use the claws, and flurry as a bonus action).

The monk subclass however is gonna be Kensei, which after a quick scan I don’t think anyone’s talked about in this thread.


Kensei might seem weird here but I’m 90% sure that you could choose the barbarian claws as a Kensei weapon.

Now for me the main reason for taking this was to make use of the later features which can grant bonuses to the damage of the claws, since those can’t ever be upgraded with magic items, however even if you only go to level 4 as a monk it’s worth considering.

A problem mentioned a few times has been the lack of AC this build has, especially for a melee fighter.

Kensei’s Agile parry can be used any round you have a spare attack. Unarmed attacks technically don’t even necessarily come from your hands, kicks or head-buts would also count, so I’m pretty sure you could actually activate this even with your hands full.

Also if you do go further into Kensei, it’s one of the least reliant on wisdom because it has no effects tied to the monk dc.

[JediMaster]

Segev, thanks for admitting that in your argument, a Long Jump involving any height (or any Jump of height) requires mandatorily a Fall.

The issue is that the rules never mention that the player Falls all the while presenting a way for successfully resolving a Long Jump that clears an obstacle and therefore would require some vertical adjustment to land on his feet on the ground. The Jump rules don't share your opinion that Jumps with height require Falls to complete successfully.

So, the Jump rules present us entirely with a procedure that gives us the go ahead to resolve Jumps involving height without treating them as Falls. This is completely adequate if one's approach to the rules is procedural and not a physical simulation.

My argument is RAW in the sense that I do what the rules tell me to do, following the procedure set forth by the rules, and do not supply any assumptions as to what the rules should or should not be doing. I follow the rules for Jump to complete Jumps unless directed to do otherwise by the rules.

The rules for Jump as presented allow for free descent adjustments to put the character back on the ground after the distance and/or height is "cleared" as evidenced by the free descent adjustments allowed in the procedure for resolving the case of Long Jump over an obstacle of height. The rules designate that procedure as a legitimate resolution for Jumps involving height and the procedure involves no Falling. No Falling.

Your argument mandatorily requires a Fall. The rules for Jump don't agree with your argument. They don't mention Falling in a case where Falling absolutely has to come into play to resolve a Jump if we require Falling for descent adjustments.

You can presuppose that a Jump of height involves Falling mandatorily but that is inserting a presupposition into your parsing of the procedure set forth by the rules.

The rules for Jump indicate clearly that free descent adjustments are allowed and that Falling is not required to land the player on his feet on the ground after a Long Jump of height (as evidenced in its depiction of a canonical case). This means of course that Jumps in general can freely adjust descent.

Your claim that Jumps of any height require Falls is directly contradicted by the Jump rules themselves. You can claim that the Jump rules omit mentioning Falling because it frequently is not relevant but nonetheless Falling is there in the rules ( hidden as it were but still somehow there) because physically it is required. Your argument then has as an unstated premise that Jumps are governed by physics and are not simply procedural. Your argument is reasonable but is not RAW. The RAW provides us with a procedure for resolving jumps that is decidedly nonphysical.

In other words, the PHB presents us procedures for resolving Jumps that are missing any mentioning of Falling. The procedures are complete unto themselves and do not introduce any issues when you simply follow them without addition. For you, they must be missing Falling --for some reason you cannot adequately provide an answer for -- since the rules must work physically even when the rules themselves make no mention of physics. For me, rules are procedures set forth by a game like rolling a 20 sided die for initiative that do not necessarily align with physical expectations. If your premise is that the rules must simulate physics to the extent that you will actively change provided rules to be physical and insist that rules cannot simply be procedural then kindly explain the physics of a d20 roll for initiative.

[Segev]

Segev, thanks for admitting that in your argument, a Long Jump involving any height (or any Jump of height) requires mandatorily a Fall.

The issue is that the rules never mention that the player Falls all the while presenting a way for successfully resolving a Long Jump that clears an obstacle and therefore would require some vertical adjustment to land on his feet on the ground. The Jump rules don't share your opinion that Jumps with height require Falls to complete successfully.They don't dispute it, either. You can either rule that the long jump does not invoke the falling rules because it specifically overrides them with its rules on the landing site, or you can rule that falling rules apply. Both are valid.

High jump rules do not have any rules provided about landing, because the high jump is over when you reach the height of the jump.


So, the Jump rules present us entirely with a procedure that gives us the go ahead to resolve Jumps involving height without treating them as Falls. This is completely adequate if one's approach to the rules is procedural and not a physical simulation.You're conflating long jumps and high jumps, here, and it is inaccurate to do so because the element in long jumps which may permit you to bypass falling rules is conspicuously absent from high jump's rules: specifically, long jump discusses the landing at the end, while high jumps do not.


My argument is RAW in the sense that I do what the rules tell me to do, following the procedure set forth by the rules, and do not supply any assumptions as to what the rules should or should not be doing. I follow the rules for Jump to complete Jumps unless directed to do otherwise by the rules.Wrong. You're making a ruling when it comes to long jump which may be in line with the RAW. You are adding rules of your own to high jumps to bring them in line with long jumps. This is fine, but it is not in the RAW. The RAW do not include things that aren't written.


The rules for Jump as presented allow for free descent adjustments to put the character back on the ground after the distance and/or height is "cleared" as evidenced by the free descent adjustments allowed in the procedure for resolving the case of Long Jump over an obstacle of height. The rules designate that procedure as a legitimate resolution for Jumps involving height and the procedure involves no Falling. No Falling.They do not, actually. They CAN BE READ to do so, but nothing actually says falling is not involved. That's your assumption, and is in line with the RAW since there is discussion of what happens when you land, but it is not the only way to read it. The RAW include the falling rules, and nothing in the long jump rules specifically discounts the falling rules.

Where you're absolutely inventing new rules and not working with the RAW is when you claim the rules for long jump landings apply to high jump landings. High jump landings do not get covered at all in the jumping rules; the jumping rules for high jumps finish up with the character reaching the height they are allowed. After that, the rules stop, and other rules of 5e take over. Including, if they're unsupported in the air, falling rules.


Your argument mandatorily requires a Fall.Sure.


The rules for Jump don't agree with your argument.False. To prove yourself right, you must show that the rules for jumping specifically exclude or provide exception to the falling rules.


They don't mention Falling in a case where Falling absolutely has to come into play to resolve a Jump if we require Falling for descent adjustments.If it absolutely has to come into play, there's no need to mention the falling rules. The falling rules are able to speak for themselves, and do not need repetition. By your logic, the ability to push a creature 5 ft. cannot cause them to fall off a cliff they're standing next to the edge of because it doesn't mention that creatures pushed off of cliffs fall in the rules on pushing creatures.


You can presuppose that a Jump of height involves Falling mandatorily but that is inserting a presupposition into your parsing of the procedure set forth by the rules.Nope. It's looking at the situation and applying the rules of the game to them. If you're unsupported in the air, you fall. If you fall, falling rules come into play. The arguments for why long jumps don't invoke falling rules amount to long jump having specific exception by providing its own rules for landing, and the fact that a jump is not "unsupported." It provides exception to the normal case of immediately falling. This is also how high jumps work: you're supported until you reach the end of the jump...which is at the height of it, because it never mentions coming back down. If, at the end of a high jump or a long jump, you are unsupported, you fall.

Actually, that's another point in favor of long jump not resulting in falling rules: Both long jumps and high jumps do not involve falling while you are jumping. The end of a long jump is usually supported because you're usually jumping to a similar elevation. The end of a high jump may or may not be supported because you may or may not grab onto something or land on a higher ledge. In either long or high jumps, if you end in open air with nothing supporting you, you fall.

Your interpretation requires high jumps to have a special, unwritten clause that allows them to return to the ground despite the jump being over that you're not permitting to long jumps.


The rules for Jump indicate clearly that free descent adjustments are allowedYou have not quoted this. You have said that the lack of mentioning falling in long jump means this, but you are wrong: If you say, "The road is covered in ice!" that doesn't mean the road is not slippery just because you didn't say "...and it is slippery." Ice makes roads slippery, which means that saying the road is covered in ice makes it slippery.

That said, long jumping is not done until you're at the end of the jump, which includes both vertical and horizontal components. Likewise, nothing in the high jump rules changes this: when you leap up, you are able to actually keep going up without falling until the jump is over. The jump is over when you get to the height the high jump permits. If the jump was not yet over, then you would remain at that height or keep ascending to it, because that's what a high jump is: it's ascending to a height. When the jump is over, whether long or high, you need to determine what happens to you based on the situation you're in now that the jump is over. A character long jumping 20 feet off the end of a cliff does, in fact, fall after that, because he's now in mid-air. A character high jumping to a point in mid-air likewise falls if he has nothing to keep him from doing so.


Your claim that Jumps of any height require Falls is directly contradicted by the Jump rules themselves.You keep claiming this, but haven't quoted rules that support you. You assert the lack of mentioning falling means that it doesn't apply, and you have an argument for long jumps...as long as the jump is going on.


You can claim that the Jump rules omit mentioning Falling because it frequently is not relevant but nonetheless Falling is there in the rules ( hidden as it were but still somehow there)Not hidden. The falling rules are printed on p. 183 of the PHB, on the facing page to the page (182) giving the Jumping rules. The rules aren't hidden. The rules aren't mentioned in the Jumping section because you are expected to be able to put them together.

Note that rules on melee attacks don't actually say you move into melee to be in melee; does this mean that making a melee attack negates the need for movement expenditure when you're not in melee? Of course not. You have to use movement rules to get within melee range. Melee attacks don't need to mention movement rules in order for this to be true.


Your argument then has as an unstated premise that Jumps are governed by physics and are not simply procedural. Your argument is reasonable but is not RAW. The RAW provides us with a procedure for resolving jumps that is decidedly nonphysical. On the contrary! It is your argument that is injecting reason and physics into it, and ignoring the RAW. You're claiming that of course you can return to the altitude form which you jumped without taking damage; you didn't hurt yourself jumping up in the first place, right? But you're adding text to the jumping rules that isn't there: nowhere in the jumping rules does it say you don't fall when you are finished jumping.


In other words, the PHB presents us procedures for resolving Jumps that are missing any mentioning of Falling.I agree. And until the jump is finished, the falling rules don't apply. Which is why long jumps - you've convinced me - don't invoke falling rules for that height clearance in the middle of them.


The procedures are complete unto themselves and do not introduce any issues when you simply follow them without addition.Correct.'


For you, they must be missing FallingHere's where you're wrong: They're not "missing falling."

When you are done with your jump, if you are not supported, you fall. This is also true of movement: when you're moving, if you are at any point unsupported, you fall. The jumping rules give you the exception to needing support: you're jumping, and can ascend and cross distance without falling. When you reach the end of your jump, however, if you are still unsupported, you fall.

Long jumps that end in mid-air also cause you to fall. High jumps just are easier to end in mid-air, since you are ending them higher up than when you started them. Long jumps, you typically aren't ending at a height different than you started them (though I suppose you technically could end them up to a quarter of the maximum distance you could jump higher, with a DC 10 Athletics check).

When you end a high jump without having grabbed onto something or otherwise landed on a nearby ledge, you have ended it in mid-air, just as if you long jumped off a cliff and ended many feet from any support.

[Zaile]

Why would falling on a creature cause you to take damage but falling on the ground doesn’t using the same high jump? Don’t you think that is inconsistent?

Also what happens when you try to land on the creature but the creature makes it’s save to avoid taking damage from you? Technically you end up in the exact situation as high jump up and down but now you do take damage and full damage at that?

Also the text in Tasha’s is any falling damage is split between the two creatures but by your ruling that damage is zero when you are executing a high jump suplex. So in your goal to make nice things for fighting classes you actually lowered their damage.

Good point, but Tasha's is also a general rule that does not mention jumping. I was making an interpretation there, but what you said is correct. To be consistent I would have to say you can't jump and fall on someone to cause damage. However, when you use your body as a weapon to inflict damage, you are not using your body to brace coming down from a jump. See WWE moves like Macho Man elbow, frog splash, star press etc. I would consider those a fall, but not a jump when you brace on the way down.

[Gignere]

Good point, but Tasha's is also a general rule that does not mention jumping. I was making an interpretation there, but what you said is correct. To be consistent I would have to say you can't jump and fall on someone to cause damage. However, when you use your body as a weapon to inflict damage, you are not using your body to brace coming down from a jump. See WWE moves like Macho Man elbow, frog splash, star press etc. I would consider those a fall, but not a jump when you brace on the way down.

But don’t you see you are now making ever more rules just so it can fit with your original ruling of during a high jump up and down and taking no damage.

Whereas my position as well as Segev’s position there is absolutely no inconsistency and all the rules on falling and jumping all play nicely together.

Now you can suplex someone using Tasha’s rules and not only inflict falling damage on that target but you can fall on the target and also inflict your falling damage on them. Isn’t it odd that our interpretation seem to work well with various different rules strewn across multiple books? So maybe just maybe we are closer to the RAW, just saying.

[JediMaster]

I appreciate that you now agree with my argument about Long Jumps with height and how their rules allow for free descent to land on one's feet back on the ground.

For High Jumps you are overlooking something.

Let's examine the rules for Falling.

"Falling
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer.At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall."

That is the entireity of the rules for Falling. The rules do not say if a character is not supported by the ground or by some other means then they vertically descend until they reach the ground. The rules simply indicate the consequence of a fall.

In terms of rule writing, this is a Push system. In a push system a rule sends a trigger event to a resulting consequence. The rules for Flying send the player to the rules for Falling.

"Flying creatures enjoy many benefits of mobility, but they must also deal with the danger of falling. If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell."

So obviously Flying cut short by some means induces a Fall. The rules rely on the semantics of Fall to prompt the player to initiate a vertical descent. If the players are in a zero gravity environment then those rules would supersede.

A Jump is semantically "propel oneself upward and/or forward and then land on one's feet". Jumps are not simply "propel oneself upward and/or forward". The successful completion of a Jump ends with the character landing on one's feet and the rules for Jump govern Jumps all the way through to their completion.

Your argument is that a Jump is just "to propel oneself upward and/or forward". For you, it just so happens that the Long Jump rules politely put you back on the ground and on your feet. For you, the High Jump rules are not so polite and leave you stranded in the air. We deviate in how we define Jump.

So let us take the example of a High Jump in which the character jumps just 1 foot upwards. What happens then?

For your argument, a Fall happens. The problem is that the rules for Jump do not indicate that a Fall happens which is incredibly problematic for you since High Jumps absolutely require Falls or characters remain floating in the air. The rules can only be considered as profoundly broken to omit this critical info. To compound things further, the rules for Falling only provide the consequences of a fall from a great height and not how to actually resolve a fall positionally. Any understanding of any descent vertically is actually being provided by your outside knowledge of how things work physically. So no matter what you are house ruling. You can argue that the shoddiness of the rules forces you to but nonetheless you patch up the hole in the rules with a house rule you introduce.

If instead, a Jump is to "propel oneself upward and/or forward and then land on one's feet" then everything works procedurally and the rules work as they should and the Designers shipped a game without a glaringly shoddy Jump rule. You pay for the movement to clear a height and then land on one's feet and no fall happens. Simple. Elegant.

I want to point out again that our premises are different. You define Jump as "to propel oneself upward and/or forward". My definition is "to propel oneself upward and/or forward and then land on one's feet".

Given your premise, I don't find fault with your reasoning. But your premise sends you crashing into the rules provided. A simple High Jump of 1 foot causes the rules to break from omission, requiring the player to insert a fall and to reposition their character according to outside knowledge without any provided rule for positioning. Remember, the rules for Falling do not provide any repositioning instructions. The absence of those repositioning rules requires you to house rule them in out of necessity.

My premise resolves Jump entirely with the Jump rules. When my character jumps I simply use the jump rules. When my character falls I use the Fall rules. (By the way the more I discover about these rules the more I am convinced these rules were reverse engineered from a computer game. I keep seeing indications of OOP. But that is an aside and only a hunch).

[Segev]

I appreciate that you now agree with my argument about Long Jumps with height and how their rules allow for free descent to land on one's feet back on the ground.

For High Jumps you are overlooking something.

Let's examine the rules for Falling.

"Falling
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer.At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall."

That is the entireity of the rules for Falling. The rules do not say if a character is not supported by the ground or by some other means then they vertically descend until they reach the ground. The rules simply indicate the consequence of a fall.

In terms of rule writing, this is a Push system. In a push system a rule sends a trigger event to a resulting consequence. The rules for Flying send the player to the rules for Falling.
Since you have removed "being unsupported in the air" as a cause for falling, the fall rules are never triggered, and are wasted word count. Also, nobody ever falls. So anybody up in the air just hovers there.

This is, obviously, silly, and not at all how things work, and I don't think it's what you MEAN, but it is the consequence of what you SAID.

You're denying "being unsupported in the air" as a cause of falling, so I fail to see how anything can cause you to fall. You walk off a cliff, and you don't fall, because being unsupported in the air can't make you fall. You jump thirty feet to the right of a bridge over a massive gorge, and you do not fall, because nothing says you do. You are carried into the air by a pair of gargoyles and dropped over a lava pit, and you do not fall, because nothing says you do.



Leaving that behind, let us examine this simple question:

You are on a mesa 30 feet in diameter that rises 100 feet above the grassland below. As a bonus action, you cast jump from your Ring of Jumping and run fifteen feet to the edge of it, and then jump the full 45 feet that your 15 strength plus the jump spell permits you in a long jump, straight off the edge. We agree that the upward and downward arc of your long jump doesn't use falling rules; the jumping rules covers them. Your long jump has rules covering coming down at more or less the same elevation that you leapt from.

When your long jump is over, you "land" 45 feet away from the edge of the mesa, in mid-air. What happens?



For comparison, I am standing on this mesa and decide to run 10 feet towards the edge, but then leap straight up into the air after also activating my Ring of Jumping. I soar 15 feet straight up. My jump is now complete. There is nothing within fifteen feet of me (and the closest thing is the ground 15 feet below). What happens?

[JediMaster]

Since you have removed "being unsupported in the air" as a cause for falling, the fall rules are never triggered, and are wasted word count. Also, nobody ever falls. So anybody up in the air just hovers there.

This is, obviously, silly, and not at all how things work, and I don't think it's what you MEAN, but it is the consequence of what you SAID.

You're denying "being unsupported in the air" as a cause of falling, so I fail to see how anything can cause you to fall. You walk off a cliff, and you don't fall, because being unsupported in the air can't make you fall. You jump thirty feet to the right of a bridge over a massive gorge, and you do not fall, because nothing says you do. You are carried into the air by a pair of gargoyles and dropped over a lava pit, and you do not fall, because nothing says you do.



Leaving that behind, let us examine this simple question:

You are on a mesa 30 feet in diameter that rises 100 feet above the grassland below. As a bonus action, you cast jump from your Ring of Jumping and run fifteen feet to the edge of it, and then jump the full 45 feet that your 15 strength plus the jump spell permits you in a long jump, straight off the edge. We agree that the upward and downward arc of your long jump doesn't use falling rules; the jumping rules covers them. Your long jump has rules covering coming down at more or less the same elevation that you leapt from.

When your long jump is over, you "land" 45 feet away from the edge of the mesa, in mid-air. What happens?



For comparison, I am standing on this mesa and decide to run 10 feet towards the edge, but then leap straight up into the air after also activating my Ring of Jumping. I soar 15 feet straight up. My jump is now complete. There is nothing within fifteen feet of me (and the closest thing is the ground 15 feet below). What happens?

Point me to the rules where being unsupported in the air induces a fall. Can you provide a citation instead of calling my claim silly? Remember we are discussing RAW here in so far as it relates to a rule-driven game.

If you look strictly at the rules there is an absence here. I am simply not finding the positioning rules for Falling or the general rule that describes how falls are triggered. Do you agree that they are absent? And do not shoot the messenger for pointing it out.

Fall semantically provides the understanding ("to move downward, descend"). So once something designates something as a fall or designates a character as falling (such as a rule like Flying, the description of a trap, or a DM judgement) then a fall semantically causes a vertical descent just as much as a spell description could say "you die". So its generally up to a rule or a spell description or the DM to designate an event as a fall so that semantically a vertical descent is a consequence. That is all. Something merely needs to say "your character falls". This may indeed be by design. Do characters fall in the Astral Plane or underwater? The capacity to fall is situationally dependent.

The key problem of course is that the Jump rules themselves do not designate jumping as falling. And a jump is semantically "to propel oneself upward and/or forward and then land on one's feet" so semantically a jump is completed without house ruling that a fall happens.

So far, your argument, while reasonable, is absolutely an argument that relies on house ruling. The jump rules don't designate jumping as falling. You are designating jumping as falling.

[Hytheter]

Point me to the rules where being unsupported in the air induces a fall.

When else would you fall?

[Segev]

When else would you fall?

Indeed. If you do not fall then, when do you fall? JediMaster, point me to what rules state when you fall, and how we know that you can't walk across thin air without falling.

Moreover, if you do not fall when unsupported, then you hover in thin air after a high jump, or a long jump that doesn't leave you on the ground.

[JediMaster]

Indeed. If you do not fall then, when do you fall? JediMaster, point me to what rules state when you fall, and how we know that you can't walk across thin air without falling.

Moreover, if you do not fall when unsupported, then you hover in thin air after a high jump, or a long jump that doesn't leave you on the ground.

You are forgetting that D&D is a rule-driven game and not a physics simulation.

As already indicated, something has to designate that you fall. D&D does not have a physics engine or a set of rules covering physics, and that is a feature. You could easily have a session on Beholder Planet where physics are completely different. Moreover, frequently skill rolls save you from whatever physics are perceived by the DM to be behind whatever situation.

Often while the players are exploring the DM designates when a consequence like falling occurs. The players describe what they want to do and the DM provides feedback to the player about what will happen should they indeed take that course of action. Sometimes the player might be unaware of a danger in the darkness and simply stumbles onto a hazard like a pit trap. The player places their character into the square where a pit is, the DM or player makes a roll, and if appropriate the player falls into the pit or possibly the players perception roll saves them from the fate. In this case, the DM designates that a fall happens or doesn't happen based on his beliefs about the forces in play and the outcome of a die roll.

Once a fall is designated then the rules can provide the consequence. The semantics of "fall" is all that is required to send your player downward in uncontrolled descent. The PHB assigns falling to certain situations, such as when you are flying and an opponent knocks you prone.

The rules for Jumping govern the special movement when a player "propels oneself upward and/or forward and then lands on one's feet". The rules are all that is required to resolve jumps. A player who elects to jump resolves the jump according to the instructions and mechanics provided in the PHB. Nothing in the Jump rules designates jumping as falling. Of course, there may be house rules in addition to the PHB, but our discussion is currently about the RAW.

[Segev]

You are forgetting that D&D is a rule-driven game and not a physics simulation.

As already indicated, something has to designate that you fall. D&D does not have a physics engine or a set of rules covering physics, and that is a feature. You could easily have a session on Beholder Planet where physics are completely different. Moreover, frequently skill rolls save you from whatever physics are perceived by the DM to be behind whatever situation.

Often while the players are exploring the DM designates when a consequence like falling occurs. The players describe what they want to do and the DM provides feedback to the player about what will happen should they indeed take that course of action. Sometimes the player might be unaware of a danger in the darkness and simply stumbles onto a hazard like a pit trap. The player places their character into the square where a pit is, the DM or player makes a roll, and if appropriate the player falls into the pit or possibly the players perception roll saves them from the fate. In this case, the DM designates that a fall happens or doesn't happen based on his beliefs about the forces in play and the outcome of a die roll.

Once a fall is designated then the rules can provide the consequence. The semantics of "fall" is all that is required to send your player downward in uncontrolled descent. The PHB assigns falling to certain situations, such as when you are flying and an opponent knocks you prone.

The rules for Jumping govern the special movement when a player "propels oneself upward and/or forward and then lands on one's feet". The rules are all that is required to resolve jumps. A player who elects to jump resolves the jump according to the instructions and mechanics provided in the PHB. Nothing in the Jump rules designates jumping as falling. Of course, there may be house rules in addition to the PHB, but our discussion is currently about the RAW.
So, then, your assertion is that you do not fall when you step off the edge of a cliff.

[JediMaster]

So, then, your assertion is that you do not fall when you step off the edge of a cliff.

Something has to designate that a fall occurs such as a rule, spell description, or DM feedback.

D&D is not a physics simulation. Did the DM designate that a fall occurs or did I make my saving throw/skill roll such that the fall did not occur? Are we on Beholder Planet or the Astral Plane?

[Segev]

Something has to designate that a fall occurs such as a rule, spell description, or DM feedback.

D&D is not a physics simulation. Did the DM designate that a fall occurs or did I make my saving throw/skill roll such that the fall did not occur? Are we on Beholder Planet or the Astral Plane?

Then, what designates that a creature falls?

[JediMaster]

Then, what designates that a creature falls?

As already indicated . . . a rule, spell description, or DM designation.

This should not be a controversial point. D&D is not a physics engine.

[OvisCaedo]

This is... an absurdly long circular argument about the RAW of a very sparsely written rule. The high jump rule literally doesn't even say you come back down from the jump, because it should be clear common sense that you'd do so. Text being absent is NOT an explicit indication of the opposite. I don't think they even considered jump enhancements when writing the rule, or the concept that someone would jump 30 feet straight up into the air to deliberately come crashing back down to the ground instead of having jumped to actually get somewhere. It's not really a common enough concept or concern for it to be worth revising or clarifying the rules on. Not with how much of the system is already intentionally vague or hazily written.

Either way, I don't think anybody is going to convince anyone else on this tangent, don't you guys think it's maybe gone on long enough?

[Segev]

As already indicated . . . a rule, spell description, or DM designation.

This should not be a controversial point. D&D is not a physics engine.

Then your ruling means that somebody jumping off a cliff hovers in the air, and somebody high jumping hovers in the air.


Anyway, I think we've veered off-topic for this thread. I reiterate my point: if you're trying to build a grappler and want to do the flying suplex move, make sure you and your DM discuss how the high jumping rules interact with the falling rules in his campaign.

[JediMaster]

Then your ruling means that somebody jumping off a cliff hovers in the air, and somebody high jumping hovers in the air.

Nope. A 'jump' semantically means "to propel oneself upward and/or forward and then land on one's feet". So, following the mechanics in the Jump rules for a High Jump that the PHB provides, my character ends up landing on his feet on the ground.

In the case of my character Long Jumping off a cliff there are no rules provided specifically for that case so I am required by the rules to explain to the DM what I am trying to do and then the DM decides what happens.

So what exactly am I trying to do when I jump off the cliff? Am I trying to fall?

If so, then I explain to the DM that I am trying to fall. Then the DM decides whether it is appropriate that I fall given the situation, designates a fall if appropriate, and assigns die rolls as appropriate to determine the outcome.

That is how the rules play out as written. I am following the rules as written.

Your argument deviates from the rules as written. Specifically, you insert rules of your own that are not present in the rules into the Jump rules.

[Dualswinger]

In a "Build to 20" scenario, your last 10 levels could be spent on Artificer, since they get the ability to make both "Boots of Striding and Springing" and the "Ring of Jumping".

Assuming you rolled a 10 on your athletics check, that would be (((D20+3(Base jump)+5(Str)+5(Str, Beast Athletics)+6(Prof:Athletics)+6(Expertise:Athletics ))*2(Step of the Wind))*3(Jump Spell))*3(Boots)

A total of 630 ft max high jump.

So to get that kind of height, probably need to be a tabaxi. 30ft base + Mobile 10ft + Longstrider 10ft = 50. Doubled due to Tabaxi dash, Doubled for Haste, halved for grappling = 100. Even with Base Movment + Action dash + Bonus action dash + Haste action dash, you're still short by 200ft.

Edit: Just remembered that "Fall damage" caps out at 20d6/200ft, so honestly Artificer 10 can accomplish this build fairly easily.

Hmmmm... I wonder if you could append the magic items onto your Steel Defender construct, then have them take the falling damage...

[Segev]

Nope. A 'jump' semantically means "to propel oneself upward and/or forward and then land on one's feet".

Wrong. It means only the first half.

People who jump off of buildings rarely land on their feet.

But your definition here means that falling is a silly rule that's never invoked. "I long-jumped off the edge of the cliff. Since nothing in the rules says that I fall when unsupported, I land on my feet either at the bottom of the gorge or in mid-air, and I take no damage."

You're getting more and more tortured in your definitions, and I really don't understand why. It seems you have a desire to claim that you're "just reading the RAW" when you aren't. Given that 5e doesn't place a lot of value on "just reading the RAW" due to its "rulings over rules" paradigm, this seems like a lot of effort for no benefit.

For the purposes of this thread, all we really need is to point out that the DM will need to rule on whether high jumping over 10 feet up leads to falling damage, or if high jumping lets you land safely at the same elevation from which you began.

[Gignere]

Wrong. It means only the first half.

People who jump off of buildings rarely land on their feet.

But your definition here means that falling is a silly rule that's never invoked. "I long-jumped off the edge of the cliff. Since nothing in the rules says that I fall when unsupported, I land on my feet either at the bottom of the gorge or in mid-air, and I take no damage."

You're getting more and more tortured in your definitions, and I really don't understand why. It seems you have a desire to claim that you're "just reading the RAW" when you aren't. Given that 5e doesn't place a lot of value on "just reading the RAW" due to its "rulings over rules" paradigm, this seems like a lot of effort for no benefit.

For the purposes of this thread, all we really need is to point out that the DM will need to rule on whether high jumping over 10 feet up leads to falling damage, or if high jumping lets you land safely at the same elevation from which you began.

I mean by JediMaster’s ruling, to stay consistent, if the target that’s grappled happened to have a high jump >= to the grappler the target should take no damage as well from the fall. Unless she start introducing some odd rule about controlled jumps and uncontrolled jumps which is definitely going to stray far off RAW.

[JediMaster]

Wrong. It means only the first half.

People who jump off of buildings rarely land on their feet.

But your definition here means that falling is a silly rule that's never invoked. "I long-jumped off the edge of the cliff. Since nothing in the rules says that I fall when unsupported, I land on my feet either at the bottom of the gorge or in mid-air, and I take no damage."

You're getting more and more tortured in your definitions, and I really don't understand why. It seems you have a desire to claim that you're "just reading the RAW" when you aren't. Given that 5e doesn't place a lot of value on "just reading the RAW" due to its "rulings over rules" paradigm, this seems like a lot of effort for no benefit.

For the purposes of this thread, all we really need is to point out that the DM will need to rule on whether high jumping over 10 feet up leads to falling damage, or if high jumping lets you land safely at the same elevation from which you began.

Nope. My definition is not the tortured one. Check a dictionary. It is standard. If Jump mandatorily required falling then the exception would be landing on one's feet while falling would be the expected result. Per your definition, the expected result is falling prone. Per English, landing on one's feet is the expected result.

Do people jump to their death? Or do they jump and fall to their death? Jumping doesn't carry a meaning of falling unless something went very wrong.

When you watch a basketball game and a player jumps to make a shot and falls on the ground does that connote a normal jump or an unusual botched jump where injury is a concern.

The rules use English and not Segev-ese. Jumps are not falls unless something went wrong.

I like how you try to project your argument's issues on to mine.

At present, your argument insists jumps are secretly falls when the rules don't indicate they are.

You also divorce landing on one's feet from jumping. I wonder if you are requiring a free action and a mandatory skill roll for every jump no matter how high in order to land on one's feet since jump by itself according to you does not entail landing on one's feet. So I wonder how character's are landing on one's feet exactly per your argument if not by jumping normally?

I outlined exactly what happens per the Rules As Written. And I can document and fully support that my argument is indeed fully Rules As Written. You were claiming a Rules As Written argument before. I guess you are no longer claiming to have one.

Is this correct? Are you conceding that I have the RAW argument and that yours involves house ruling?

Whether or not an argument is RAW bears little on any particular game of D&D. I am simply interested in whether we can factually say that your argument is RAW for my own education on the matter since I often play in sessions which are strict RAW. I am also interested in whether we can factually say my argument is RAW. Applying reason and principles, I can assert that your argument is not RAW while mine is RAW. Do you differ in your assessment?


I mean by JediMaster’s ruling, to stay consistent, if the target that’s grappled happened to have a high jump >= to the grappler the target should take no damage as well from the fall. Unless she start introducing some odd rule about controlled jumps and uncontrolled jumps which is definitely going to stray far off RAW.

The target being grappled would have to be actively jumping which is impossible in the rules.

[Gignere]

Nope. My definition is not the tortured one. Check a dictionary. It is standard. If Jump mandatorily required falling then the exception would be landing on one's feet while falling would be the expected result. Per your definition, the expected result is falling prone. Per English, landing on one's feet is the expected result.

Do people jump to their death? Or do they jump and fall to their death? Jumping doesn't carry a meaning of falling unless something went very wrong.

When you watch a basketball game and a player jumps to make a shot and falls on the ground does that connote a normal jump or an unusual botched jump where injury is a concern.

The rules use English and not Segev-ese. Jumps are not falls unless something went wrong.

I like how you try to project your argument's issues on to mine.

At present, your argument insists jumps are secretly falls when the rules don't indicate they are.

You also divorce landing on one's feet from jumping. I wonder if you are requiring a free action and a mandatory skill roll for every jump no matter how high in order to land on one's feet since jump by itself according to you does not entail landing on one's feet. So I wonder how character's are landing on one's feet exactly per your argument if not by jumping normally?

I outlined exactly what happens per the Rules As Written. And I can document and fully support that my argument is indeed fully Rules As Written. You were claiming a Rules As Written argument before. I guess you are no longer claiming to have one.

Is this correct? Are you conceding that I have the RAW argument and that yours involves house ruling?

Whether or not an argument is RAW bears little on any particular game of D&D. I am simply interested in whether we can factually say that your argument is RAW for my own education on the matter since I often play in sessions which are strict RAW. I am also interested in whether we can factually say my argument is RAW. Applying reason and principles, I can assert that your argument is not RAW while mine is RAW. Do you differ in your assessment?

Actually I didn’t want to bring it up but since you did you should probably lookup the definition of jump as you suggested.

The first definition is push oneself off a surface and into the air using the muscles in the legs and feet.

So no mention of the downward motion of the jump. In fact I believe the official term for the downward motion is actually land. They are very specific to use this term in competition as in stick their landing.

[JediMaster]

Actually I didn’t want to bring it up but since you did you should probably lookup the definition of jump as you suggested.

The first definition is push oneself off a surface and into the air using the muscles in the legs and feet.

So no mention of the downward motion of the jump. In fact I believe the official term for the downward motion is actually land. They are very specific to use this term in competition as in stick their landing.

The term "stick the landing" refers to a solid landing. Landing however is the expected and normal result. A fall is obviously the unexpected result.

The Jump rules either provide for landing on one's feet or they do not. Examining the Long Jump mechanics provided we can see that the Jump rules do provide landing on one's feet as intrinsic to a normal jump.

If you want to insert your definition that jumps are mandatorily falls and don't entail landing on one's feet then every jump normally falls prone and requires an expenditure of a free action and a skill roll to land on one's feet. Is this your proposal?

[Segev]

The term "stick the landing" refers to a solid landing. Landing however is the expected and normal result. A fall is obviously the unexpected result.

The Jump rules either provide for landing on one's feet or they do not. Examining the Long Jump mechanics provided we can see that the Jump rules do provide landing on one's feet as intrinsic to a normal jump.

If you want to insert your definition that jumps are mandatorily falls and don't entail landing on one's feet then every jump normally falls prone and requires an expenditure of a free action and a skill roll to land on one's feet. Is this your proposal?

Now you're bringing real-world physics expectations in and ignoring your own standard of only looking at what's in the RAW. This is not surprising, though, since your own claim of "just doing what the rules say" involves you inventing rules that aren't there. i.e., it involves you making a ruling. This would be fine if you weren't trying to pretend that your ruling that way puts the text on the page when the text is not on the page.

Which only reinforces that the need for rulings means you should check with your DM to know how he'll run you doing the flying suplex.

[Gignere]

The term "stick the landing" refers to a solid landing. Landing however is the expected and normal result. A fall is obviously the unexpected result.

The Jump rules either provide for landing on one's feet or they do not. Examining the Long Jump mechanics provided we can see that the Jump rules do provide landing on one's feet as intrinsic to a normal jump.

If you want to insert your definition that jumps are mandatorily falls and don't entail landing on one's feet then every jump normally falls prone and requires an expenditure of a free action and a skill roll to land on one's feet. Is this your proposal?

You really can’t conflate long jumps with high jumps and say that is RAW. We are even operating on a different definition of RAW. However, I really don’t want to argue with you because you have so conflated your RAI with RAW it is impossible to have a discussion. Like I said many posts ago let’s agree to disagree and since I don’t play at your table it doesn’t matter how you and your DM rule it.

[JediMaster]

Now you're bringing real-world physics expectations in and ignoring your own standard of only looking at what's in the RAW. This is not surprising, though, since your own claim of "just doing what the rules say" involves you inventing rules that aren't there. i.e., it involves you making a ruling. This would be fine if you weren't trying to pretend that your ruling that way puts the text on the page when the text is not on the page.

Which only reinforces that the need for rulings means you should check with your DM to know how he'll run you doing the flying suplex.

Nope. I have not brought in any real-world physics expectations. It can be proven by referencing the rules themselves that the expected normal consequence of a Jump is landing on one's feet and that a fall involves a botched Jump. So my argument is RAW. If you think it is not then can you point out in detail rather than vaguely about why you think that?

I am not trying to win the argument. I am trying to factually ascertain RAW for future uses of running Jump as RAW in campaigns.

[Segev]

Nope. I have not brought in any real-world physics expectations. It can be proven by referencing the rules themselves that the expected normal consequence of a Jump is landing on one's feet and that a fall involves a botched Jump. So my argument is RAW. If you think it is not then can you point out in detail rather than vaguely about why you think that?

I am not trying to win the argument. I am trying to factually ascertain RAW for future uses of running Jump as RAW in campaigns.

Your interpretation is relevant only in helping back up that one should ask one's DM. I am not going to further debate the issue with you; my analysis of your argument is that it is wrong. Your ruling is perfectly fine, but it is a ruling and includes a certain amount of house rules to make it work the way you want. This is fine, and I'm sure you'll rebut by saying "no, I'm just following what's in the rules," but since we're at the "nuh-uh!" phase of the debate, I will cut it off here and not respond further to you on this subject in this thread. You may, if you like, have the last word on it, though I suspect neither of us have anything new to say on the subject at this point. (I know this post isn't me saying anything I haven't already said.)

[JediMaster]

You really can’t conflate long jumps with high jumps and say that is RAW. We are even operating on a different definition of RAW. However, I really don’t want to argue with you because you have so conflated your RAI with RAW it is impossible to have a discussion. Like I said many posts ago let’s agree to disagree and since I don’t play at your table it doesn’t matter how you and your DM rule it.

We can look at the rules for Long Jump to ascertain what the rules consider to be a Jump since Long Jumps and High Jumps are indeed Jumps.

If we examine the rules we can ascertain that in the case of a Long Jump landing on one's feet is normal. So either you attribute "landing on one's feat" semantically and logically arising from Long or Jump. I cannot fathom a reason logically or semantically that the adjective Long would add the notion of landing on one's feet. Can you? So that leaves Jump carrying the semantics of landing on one's feet as normal.


Your interpretation is relevant only in helping back up that one should ask one's DM. I am not going to further debate the issue with you; my analysis of your argument is that it is wrong. Your ruling is perfectly fine, but it is a ruling and includes a certain amount of house rules to make it work the way you want. This is fine, and I'm sure you'll rebut by saying "no, I'm just following what's in the rules," but since we're at the "nuh-uh!" phase of the debate, I will cut it off here and not respond further to you on this subject in this thread. You may, if you like, have the last word on it, though I suspect neither of us have anything new to say on the subject at this point. (I know this post isn't me saying anything I haven't already said.)

I am more often than not the DM. I am not trying to win the argument. I am trying to factually ascertain RAW so that I can implement Jump per RAW if possible.

I have found your reasoning and a dialogue with you helpful to that end. I would hope that you continue the dialogue. I asked you to specify how I am house ruling so that I might attempt to address those concerns. However, feel free to end the conversation for whatever reason if you want to.

[Dualswinger]

Guys can we get back on point for the build? I'm sure there's a better place to debate the jumping mechanics, but poor Awrysight is gonna get their thread locked at this rate.

[Grey Watcher]

Obviously a different direction than you went, but I had an idea when trying to adapt a video game character. Take a race with a natural weapon (I went with Lizardfolk), use the Storm Barbarian for a damaging aura (I went with Desert for fire for thematic reasons), and take the Unarmed Fighting Style as a feat (or dip Fighter). Grab Grappler and maybe Savage Attacker at some point. Might not get the same DPS, but I like the idea of latching onto a foe and just holding in while you bite, claw, and pummel them while they also take damage from the heat (or whatever) coming off your hide.

[Zaile]

Guys can we get back on point for the build? I'm sure there's a better place to debate the jumping mechanics, but poor Awrysight is gonna get their thread locked at this rate.

Yes, sorry for being a party to this.

Rune Knight is gust too good to leave out of a grappler build w/no contraction enlarge. @Awrysight

I's say add in Rune Knight 3 or 4 (Fire and Stone Runes for GREAT CC).
Take Astral Self Monk monk will let you grapple 4 creatures w/advantage from Giant's Might. You can grapple + Prone all 4 w/ Action Surge
NOW you do your super jump w/4 enemies

Tavern Brawler for action economy and +1 STR/CON
Get rings of jumping/feather fall to avoid the last 3 pages of replys

[JediMaster]

Rune Knight Kobold Street Urchin. Over.

[Darzil]

I think the only real answer to jumping and how you land is speak to your GM, as rules aren't explicit.

Real world isn't much help, as extreme long jumps (at limit of your ability - see olymics) result in needing a soft landing place and you land prone. Extreme high jumps result in needing a softer landing place and you land prone.

[Hytheter]

Extreme high jumps result in needing a softer landing place and you land prone.

To be fair, that's only because pro high jumpers dive backwards over the bar, as it clears more height than jumping straight up and over. Just jumping as high as you can without that technique would actually give you higher reach (as opposed to clearance) and wouldn't result in you falling onto your back.

[Awrysight]

Rune Knight is gust too good to leave out of a grappler build w/no contraction enlarge. @Awrysight
Pretty much, it's really good.


I's say add in Rune Knight 3 or 4 (Fire and Stone Runes for GREAT CC).
Take Astral Self Monk monk will let you grapple 4 creatures w/advantage from Giant's Might. You can grapple + Prone all 4 w/ Action Surge
NOW you do your super jump w/4 enemies
While that's definetely an interesting idea, I'd rather have the option to grapple/action surge silence those pesky spellcasters, so shadow still wins out for me. Besides, Astral Self requires a bonus action and a ki point to give you anything at all, while shadow at least gives you minor illusion for free, on top of the ki point spells.


Tavern Brawler for action economy and +1 STR/CON
The thing is that monk already provides a decent option for the bonus action, and between step of the wind, RK's enlarge & runes and, in your build, Astral Self's arms, those bonus actions are way too heavily contested already, so spending a feat for an additional option sounds like too much.


Get rings of jumping/feather fall to avoid the last 3 pages of replys
Slow fall is half the reason I go monk :smallwink: