1Dnd: Jump is an action? C’mon

[Arelai]

I’m stunned. Why isn’t there a check to see how much of your speed you can use when you dash too?

It’s also hella swingy. If you have an 18 strength, your jump is 5ft on a fail, 10 at the lowest ‘pass’, then the max is about 26-30ft.

Half that for vertical, so your barbarian’s high jump is somewhere between 2.5ft and 13-15ft-varying somewhere in there every 6 seconds.

He could be standing on solid dry ground, jumping repeatedly, and it will just be a random height between 2.5 and 15.

This is so dumb.

[Dr.Samurai]

https://media.tenor.com/gZpu6Unk0DwAAAAM/amen-anchorman.gif

Indeed. An Action and a swingy skill check. Casters get Jump. Rogues get Reliable Talent and Rangers and Rogues get Expertise.

Big strong warriors? Eh, maybe you can jump gooder, or maybe not. Let's see what the dice say. Best of luck to you!

[Zhorn]

It’s also hella swingy. If you have an 18 strength, your jump is 5ft on a fail, 10 at the lowest ‘pass’, then the max is about 26-30ft.

Half that for vertical, so your barbarian’s high jump is somewhere between 2.5ft and 13-15ft-varying somewhere in there every 6 seconds.

He could be standing on solid dry ground, jumping repeatedly, and it will just be a random height between 2.5 and 15.

This is so dumb.

Linking to it here since this is more dedicated to the jump topic; I proposed an alternative in the Codifying thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650188-Codifying&p=25601091&viewfull=1#post25601091) for reigning in the variability

[Xihirli]

Right! Now if someone is flying just out of reach, melee fighters can’t jump and attack them.

Seriously, it’s like the designers looked at 5e and thought
"You know who has it too good? Rogues and Strength builds!"

[Kane0]

Agreed, and make sure you let it be known when the survey rolls around

[Psyren]

+1. I haven't seen anyone who was in favor of Jump being an action, even here.

[Person_Man]

Agreed that its dumb. I am guessing that someone wrote a class feature for the Monk that lets them Jump as a Bonus Action, and then decided to gate it off as as Action for everyone else. Which is just terrible design.

[Dr.Samurai]

In 1D&D world:

DM - Suddenly, a fissure opens up between you and the evil wizard. He and his minions laugh and turn to flee, with the hostages in tow. What do you do?

Wizard Player - How wide is the fissure?

DM - 20ft

Wizard Player - Ok, I use Misty Step to get across and start raining down destruction!

Druid Player - I'll wildshape into a giant eagle and fly across and start attacking.

Rogue Player - I leap across with Reliable Talent and Expertise in Acrobatics. Oh! I'll do a backflip and a double spin before I land. I can't attack unfortunately, even with Cunning Action, because Jump specifically requires an Action, not a Dash...

DM - Yep, seems fine to me.

Barbarian Player - *looks off in the distance with a thoughtful stare* There was a time, when I could make this jump without even thinkin' about it, and keep up the offensive on the other side. Jumpin' wasn't about what the dice held, and it was just a part of your regular movement. You know...

Wizard Player - Oh come off it and just roll!

Barbarian Player - *hands trembling, they roll the die* I got a six. Plus four proficiency and five strength... 15.

DM - Well, technically you succeed!

Barbarian Player - Oh thank goodness, I wasn't sure.

DM - Yeah, you succeed so you get to jump 15ft across. Unfortunately the fissure is, as I said, 20ft across, so you fall into the chasm.

Barbarian Player - Are you serious?! Before these changes I could make this jump no problem.

DM - Yeah but they improved the game now so it's better you see? This is way better this way. Anyways, the chasm is super deep, like the earth is just splitting in half so you fall a long distance. Take 20d6 falling damage and there's no way you'll climb up in time to be a part of this combat. You and your crappy jump skills can go home now.

[Psyren]

Barbarian Player - *hands trembling, they roll the die* I got a six. Plus four proficiency and five strength... 15.

DM - Well, technically you succeed!

Barbarian Player - Oh thank goodness, I wasn't sure.

DM - Yeah, you succeed so you get to jump 15ft across. Unfortunately the fissure is, as I said, 20ft across, so you fall into the chasm.

Barbarian Player - Are you serious?! Before these changes I could make this jump no problem.

DM - Yeah but they improved the game now so it's better you see? This is way better this way.

On the bright side, think of the snark opportunities we'd have missed if they didn't try this :smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Samurai]

On the bright side, think of the snark opportunities we'd have missed if they didn't try this :smallbiggrin:
This is true. If anything, these new Jump rules have united the forum lol :smallcool:

We should all revel in this moment :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe the jump rules are the equivalent of the infamous battle chess duck? Something added for reviewers to focus on, but trivial to undo? At most charitable, it's a "are you paying attention? Then you'll say that this sucks. If you don't say anything, we can deweight your other feedback since you don't know much."

[Psyren]

Maybe the jump rules are the equivalent of the infamous battle chess duck? Something added for reviewers to focus on, but trivial to undo? At most charitable, it's a "are you paying attention? Then you'll say that this sucks. If you don't say anything, we can deweight your other feedback since you don't know much."

1) I need to know more about this duck, I loved battle chess back in the day and never heard of this.

2) It's possible it's there as a fake change, but I wouldn't put it past them to be something they're genuinely considering.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) I need to know more about this duck, I loved battle chess back in the day and never heard of this.

2) It's possible it's there as a fake change, but I wouldn't put it past them to be something they're genuinely considering.

https://bwiggs.com/notebook/queens-duck/ .

[Hytheter]

I'm pretty pleased with the UAs so far. I have my niggles, but overall I'm pretty happy.

But this is one of the key sticking points; it's just not a niggle, and it makes me quite unhappy indeed. I can kinda get why they'd go down this route, but no, please turn back.

[Mastikator]

Agreed that its dumb. I am guessing that someone wrote a class feature for the Monk that lets them Jump as a Bonus Action, and then decided to gate it off as as Action for everyone else. Which is just terrible design.

Yeah, not a fan of when they create a special feature for doing something that should be anyone able to do. Like the actor feat. "Sorry you can't jump and swing a sword on the same turn, only monks can jump and attack"

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, not a fan of when they create a special feature for doing something that should be anyone able to do. Like the actor feat. "Sorry you can't jump and swing a sword on the same turn, only monks can jump and attack"
It makes me wonder though... my previous DM did not let me get my two attacks in while jumping. An enemy was mounted on his nightmare and floating 10ft off the ground. I ran to the end of the infernal war machine and jumped off and made two attacks. He stopped me and said I only get 1 attack because I'm jumping. I said well, it's just movement and you can make your attacks at any point during your movement. I'm just leaping and attacking in the air, like in all the action movies. He said he was being generous even allowing me to make the first attack :smalleek:. I was like oooookay, I'll just go ahead and make that one attack then lol.

I wonder if the devs always intended for Jump not to really be a combat thing.

[Mastikator]

It makes me wonder though... my previous DM did not let me get my two attacks in while jumping. An enemy was mounted on his nightmare and floating 10ft off the ground. I ran to the end of the infernal war machine and jumped off and made two attacks. He stopped me and said I only get 1 attack because I'm jumping. I said well, it's just movement and you can make your attacks at any point during your movement. I'm just leaping and attacking in the air, like in all the action movies. He said he was being generous even allowing me to make the first attack :smalleek:. I was like oooookay, I'll just go ahead and make that one attack then lol.

I wonder if the devs always intended for Jump not to really be a combat thing.

I gotta say about both the devs and your DM; that's not very cash money, jumping in combat is cool

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree. Now we'll have to multiclass Fighter for Action Surge so we can Jump and Attack in the same turn... :smalltongue:

[MrStabby]

Not going to defend this overall... but there could be some upsides.

1) A jump action could be cool, as long as it is a better jump. I.e. you can jump around using your movement but if you really want to go for it then it takes an action. It would probably need to be better than this though.

2) Certain spells and effects can sometimes be circumvented too easily by jumping. Grease, caltrops, ball bearings... Putting at least a smidgen of extra cost to circumventing these seems good.

[zlefin]

One of the basic problems with DnD is an emphasis on using the d20 for so many things even when it's not a good fit.

One of the things I've meant to try is having different skills or uses for skills have different 'variance'; that is how much the results vary from attempt to attempt. Functionally this would mean using different dice for different skill tests. Some might be d20, some might be d10 or d4. This also ofc means you have to adjust the DCs because a d4 obviously won't get close to 15, and even 10 would be difficult. or just make it d4+8, that might be simpler actually.
though figuring out the details is complicated, so a better fit for 3.5 which has higher granularity.

[Zhorn]

Not going to defend this overall... but there could be some upsides.

1) A jump action could be cool, as long as it is a better jump. I.e. you can jump around using your movement but if you really want to go for it then it takes an action. It would probably need to be better than this though.

2) Certain spells and effects can sometimes be circumvented too easily by jumping. Grease, caltrops, ball bearings... Putting at least a smidgen of extra cost to circumventing these seems good.
So in changing from the UA; making it clear that under the revised rules for movement; it gives a clear definition of including possible lunges, leaps, and jumps within the bounds of your regular movement, consuming movement as existing raw (side-lining the debate on how to rule hangtime and clipped jump distances for the immediate discussion).
And then have the Jump Action defined as a wholly distinct entity, like with the current UA it doesn't consume distance from you movement, treating it as a variation on taking the Dash Action for additional mobility.

It is annoying that we saw the UA without a hint of how they were going to handle this for the Warrior martials, but maybe that was the point. Gauge the outrage-feedback from this preview to have a better idea of what is needed to make it palatable for the Warriors
(I know, giving WotC way too much credit on that take)

But anyway, as a form of bonus mobility that is just in the form of a jump rather than replacing ALL jumps, i think it gives us more to work with, and has a design space for classes to interact with differently.
Off the top of my head
Fighter; Heroic Leap. When you take the Jump Action you can make a weapon attack with advantage as part of the same action
Barbarian; Instinctive Pounce. While raging (including the turn you activate Rage) when you use a bonus action, you can make a Jump Action as part of that same bonus action.
Monk: Step of the Wind. already doubles jump distance... maybe include Jump as part one of the options?
Paladin: Sad platemail noises. magic bro can seek magic solution :smallwink:

And definitely throw out the UA's proposed distance calculation method in favour of something more reliable and less swingy.
I know I've got my pick (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650188-Codifying&p=25601091&viewfull=1#post25601091). Would love to get constructive feedback on that one, or hear some alternative suggestions that aren't as chaotic as the UA.

[Psyren]

Just to note - I fired up Baldur's Gate 3 last night to see how the Early Access is coming along, and I noted that that game has a Jump Action. I wonder if this proposed change, and some of the others, are meant to try and align 1DD with video game versions of D&D?

[Mastikator]

Just to note - I fired up Baldur's Gate 3 last night to see how the Early Access is coming along, and I noted that that game has a Jump Action. I wonder if this proposed change, and some of the others, are meant to try and align 1DD with video game versions of D&D?

Last time I played jump didn't eat your action and even let you get a free disengage. (probably OP) They must've fixed it. I'd rather jumping just provoked opportunity attack as if you moved away.

[Thunderous Mojo]

2) Certain spells and effects can sometimes be circumvented too easily by jumping. Grease, caltrops, ball bearings... Putting at least a smidgen of extra cost to circumventing these seems good.

I have the opposite view. A 1st level spell such as Grease, or the cost of purchasing caltrops is a minor resource expenditure.

Spike Growth, strategies have been discussed quite a bit, in the Playground, and I like that one of the few benefits Strength has the Dexterity does not, is that a character can automatically succeed at jumps equivalent or smaller than their strength score.

World class athletes can actually long jump 20+ feet. PC Warriors can easily be considered in the same ability range.

More importantly, the proposed Jumping rule, holds implications for other movement types. If Jumping takes an Action, shouldn’t also Swimming, Climbing, and Flying?

Swimming 15’ in churning waters, while making multiple attacks, seems as if it should be restricted, if Jumping requires an Action.

On a larger scale, I think PCs should have more abilities that they can activate and assume they succeed.

[Zalabim]

I think that all we're seeing with the jump action is a test of jump distances not being deducted from your movement limit. The result is terrible, but I know I've seen comments from people who just couldn't understand that jumping is still moving.

[Luccan]

It's going back to 3.X. Which I never recall seeing the Jump skill being used rules as written for because they sucked so much

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed that its dumb. I am guessing that someone wrote a class feature for the Monk that lets them Jump as a Bonus Action, and then decided to gate it off as as Action for everyone else. Which is just terrible design. Make sure the feedback hits them hard on this.
This is true. If anything, these new Jump rules have united the forum lol :smallcool:
We should all revel in this moment :smallbiggrin: +1

One of the basic problems with DnD is an emphasis on using the d20 for so many things even when it's not a good fit.
+1


And then the Jump Action is defined as a wholly distinct entity, like with the current UA it doesn't consume distance from you movement, treating it as a variation on taking the Dash Action for additional mobility. Let's give up an attack to jump, when we didn't have to. Brilliant design ... not. Now if you played Diablo II, your barbarian had leap attack (you jumped and attacked with a big bonus to hit and damage) and you had leap (which knocked back foes where you landed).

Just to note - I fired up Baldur's Gate 3 last night to see how the Early Access is coming along, and I noted that that game has a Jump Action. I wonder if this proposed change, and some of the others, are meant to try and align 1DD with video game versions of D&D? That will get me actively, and vocally, campaigning against this edition revision.

It's going back to 3.X. Which I never recall seeing the Jump skill being used rules as written for because they sucked so much Now that's funny. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Jumping over difficult terrain or another low obstacle during a fight should require a check (as there is a meaningful consequence for failure) but the fact that athletic/agile martials are not universally stopped in their tracks by grease and caltrops should be a feature, not a bug.

"I cast Grease, and that monk didn't even slow down before backflipping over it and kicking me in the junk!"
"Great, and what did you learn?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Jumping over difficult terrain or another low obstacle during a fight should require a check (as there is a meaningful consequence for failure) but the fact that athletic/agile martials are not universally stopped in their tracks by grease and caltrops should be a feature, not a bug.

"I cast Grease, and that monk didn't even slow down before backflipping over it and kicking me in the junk!"
"Great, and what did you learn?"

I'd say that jumping over difficult terrain in your normal jump distance (something that absolutely shouldn't go away, you should have a floor on your capability that's not 0 or 5') shouldn't require a check. Jumping further absolutely could have a check (if all the other conditions are met). I could see some codification of "how much can you exceed your normal distance with a check" being useful. And I agree that grease/caltrops should be something that (especially) a STR-type should look at and laugh. I'm fine with the more dex-types having issues--they have advantages elsewhere.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd say that jumping over difficult terrain in your normal jump distance (something that absolutely shouldn't go away, you should have a floor on your capability that's not 0 or 5') shouldn't require a check. Jumping further absolutely could have a check (if all the other conditions are met). I could see some codification of "how much can you exceed your normal distance with a check" being useful. And I agree that grease/caltrops should be something that (especially) a STR-type should look at and laugh. I'm fine with the more dex-types having issues--they have advantages elsewhere.
Pretty much agree with this. There should be advantages to being strong in D&D and I think being able to leap over minor obstacles (like difficult terrain) with no issue should be one of them.

[Kane0]

I'd say that jumping over difficult terrain in your normal jump distance (something that absolutely shouldn't go away, you should have a floor on your capability that's not 0 or 5') shouldn't require a check. Jumping further absolutely could have a check (if all the other conditions are met). I could see some codification of "how much can you exceed your normal distance with a check" being useful.

Seconded.

Jumping: Horizontal distance equal to STR score with a 10' run up, half if you don't. Halve both numbers for vertical distance. Uses your movement, if you run out of speed while jumping you don't fall, you stay in midair until your next turn where you can continue to expend movement to complete your jump. If you haven't landed by the end of the next turn, or speed is reduced to 0 or you are knocked prone while jumping you fall as normal.
Jumping extra distance: Roll Athletics. You can jump a number of extra feet horizontally equal to the number you beat your STR score by, or half that vertically.

or one third height for length if that makes more sense, I just figured half is easier to handle in-game.

[Zhorn]

And then the Jump Action is defined as a wholly distinct entity, like with the current UA it doesn't consume distance from you movement, treating it as a variation on taking the Dash Action for additional mobility. Let's give up an attack to jump, when we didn't have to. Brilliant design ... not. Now if you played Diablo II, your barbarian had leap attack (you jumped and attacked with a big bonus to hit and damage) and you had leap (which knocked back foes where you landed).
the UA's Jump Action as presented IS terrible, agreed.
Edited original post for clarity. The quote clipped like this removes the context of the response trying to find design space for such a setup to work.
We have the Dash action making the same trade-off, additional movement that costs the regular ability to attack; so how about we use similar mechanics implemented through Dashing to make Jumping with an action(or other) feel workable. Having regular jumps only use movement the same way moving normally doesn't cost an action, and then have a separate revision for the Jump action (not costing movement) while maintaining regular movement jumping.

[Kane0]

Well as it is now in 5e because jumping uses your movement the Dash action already plugs into it, giving you extra movement and thus extra jump distance. Actually pretty important when you're looking at the Jump spell and other things that increase your jump distance but not your speed.

[Psyren]

I'd say that jumping over difficult terrain in your normal jump distance (something that absolutely shouldn't go away, you should have a floor on your capability that's not 0 or 5') shouldn't require a check. Jumping further absolutely could have a check (if all the other conditions are met). I could see some codification of "how much can you exceed your normal distance with a check" being useful. And I agree that grease/caltrops should be something that (especially) a STR-type should look at and laugh. I'm fine with the more dex-types having issues--they have advantages elsewhere.

Point, I'm fine with that too.

If the obstacle requires you to gain more than 5' of height though - say, you're jumping over Black Tentacles or Entangle rather than Grease or Caltrops - that's another issue. It would be possible but might need you to exceed your jump distance and thus need a check.

[chainer1216]

Overall I'm pretty pleased with the proposed changes so far.

This though? This is terrible and I will let it be known in the survey.

[Segev]

Not going to defend this overall... but there could be some upsides.

1) A jump action could be cool, as long as it is a better jump. I.e. you can jump around using your movement but if you really want to go for it then it takes an action. It would probably need to be better than this though.Hm. Use the jumping rules from 5.0 as a base part of movement, then add, maybe, a "leap" action that uses the 5.1 rules? This becomes HOW you jump further than your strength score: it takes an action and an athletics check, guarantees you 5 extra feet, and can go up to your movement extra distance.

Not quite sure I like this. For reference of where I'm coming from, I like the "hang time" model of jumping past your movement distance. While I acknowledge it gets a little weird if you decide to dash to finish the jump NOW rather than hanging in mid-air to finish the jump next turn, for the most part, I don't see it as any more "reality-breaking" than the fact that people move and then stand still for six seconds in combat. What's "really" happening in combat isn't that people move 30 or 60 feet and then stand still for six seconds while everyone else takes their turn to move 30 feet and do something; it's all happening simultaneously and if you dash for two turns straight, you never necessarily stopped running to get from one place to the other.

Similarly, when you engage in the "hang time" rules, you aren't actually hanging in mid air; you are making one jump that is continuous in the game world. It's just that the same thing that makes you seem to run 60 feet then stand still for six seconds makes you jump part of the way and then seem to hang in the air for six seconds. If it weren't a turn-based game, you'd make one smooth, continuous jump that just happens to cross over the invisible temporal boundary between rounds.

Coming from that view on how jumping works in 5.0, I don't like anything that starts limiting jumping distance by movement speed, as I view them as separate things that have only coincidental relation to each other (in that jumping may consume movement). I don't like the idea that the jump action limits your jump distance to your speed, and it doesn't work to just combine the two rules for my taste in the matter.


2) Certain spells and effects can sometimes be circumvented too easily by jumping. Grease, caltrops, ball bearings... Putting at least a smidgen of extra cost to circumventing these seems good.I was set to agree with you and propose ways of forcing people "down" out of a jump into these kinds of obstacles, but then stopped to consider: this is one of those "nice things" that martials might have that frustrate casters. Not all martials, certainly, but enough - especially (by 5.0 rules) strength-based martials, who seem to be generally considered to be investing in the lesser of the potential martial attack stats, thus weaker than even other martials (who go with dexterity).

Now, it's a bit of an issue that grease covers so little ground that even most casters will be able to leap over it successfully, but consider that that still requires a 10 foot running start (and without that running start, even martials will typically need the poorly-specified Athletics check to extend their jump to get over it...if the DM rules the Athletics check as enabling that much extra distance, since he has zero guidance on just how much further it should let you jump).

But if strength-based martials are the ones best able to ignore hazardous terrain, that seems like a plus, especially if the DM makes use of hazardous terrain and tools to create it in his game.


Jumping over difficult terrain or another low obstacle during a fight should require a check (as there is a meaningful consequence for failure) but the fact that athletic/agile martials are not universally stopped in their tracks by grease and caltrops should be a feature, not a bug.

"I cast Grease, and that monk didn't even slow down before backflipping over it and kicking me in the junk!"
"Great, and what did you learn?"
I agree with everything but the first clause of the first sentence, here, and only quibble (and have a joking jab) over the first bit:

The RAW do not say that you need to make an ability check to jump over difficult terrain; the jumping rules make no specification about "consequences of failure." If there were guidelines (:smalltongue:) that spelled out that sometimes jumping even the minimum distance might require checks to successfully clear an obstacle, that'd be one thing, and I would hope they'd have some suggestions as to what those DCs should be. (Is it the spell DC to successfully jump over a grease spell, for instance? Honestly, for grease, I don't think there should be a check; it's flat to the ground, so if you can jump 14 feet guaranteed, there's no reason you shouldn't clear it completely. There's ALWAYS a consequence to failure for jumping, unless the player is doing it purely for flair. He's ALWAYS jumping over something. Even a 5 foot cube pit is going to bark your shins if you miss it, and require spending double movement to climb out of. But I doubt a DM is going to call for Strength(Athletics) checks to clear that, despite it having consequences for failure that would absolutely be of interest to the ongoing combat.

Where I would start calling for Strength(Athletics) checks is to clear obstacles that have height to them. Other creatures (obviously), short palisades, entangle or even layered web. The apex of the long jumping arc was considered 1/4 the length of the jump in 3.5; I don't know if that rule carried over to 5.0. Doing better than that would be similar to the rule on jumping further. (Still not sure what I'd use for the DC, though with the idea of the 5.1 rules as a guideline, maybe 1/4 of the rolled value is the minimum height at which you "intersect" the thing you're jumping over, giving you leeway to leap over a 5 foot step function without having to start the jump 10 feet before that.)

But anyway, I would NOT agree that the RAW support forcing Strength(Athletics) checks, in 5.0, for leaping over a grease spell or caltrops or ball bearings. Unless your strength is so low that your jump doesn't extend far enough. (Which, again, can be surprisingly easy if you don't have the ten foot run-up to avoid halving your jumping distance.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Where I would start calling for Strength(Athletics) checks is to clear obstacles that have height to them. Other creatures (obviously), short palisades, entangle or even layered web. The apex of the long jumping arc was considered 1/4 the length of the jump in 3.5; I don't know if that rule carried over to 5.0. Doing better than that would be similar to the rule on jumping further. (Still not sure what I'd use for the DC, though with the idea of the 5.1 rules as a guideline, maybe 1/4 of the rolled value is the minimum height at which you "intersect" the thing you're jumping over, giving you leeway to leap over a 5 foot step function without having to start the jump 10 feet before that.)


The current default for a "long jump" is that you can clear without a check a horizontal distance <= STR score (with running start) OR horizontal distance <= STR score / 2 without one. If height matters, you may (DM's option) need to make (no action) a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear an obstacle no more than 1/4 of that distance in height (hitting it on a failure).

Long jumps are always thus assumed to be totally flat, with any vertical movement being treated similarly to jumping further than your max distance. Which I find to be somewhat dumb.

Personally, I'd say "you get 1/4 of the jump distance in height for free. Make a check to go beyond the norm either horizontally or vertically (or both)."




Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.

This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or 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.

When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone.

[Unoriginal]

What would you folks say if the rules instead said:

You can jump as far as X as part of movement, butif you take an Action to jump you can go as far as X+(additional distance depending on die result)?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What would you folks say if the rules instead said:

You can jump as far as X as part of movement, butif you take an Action to jump you can go as far as X+(additional distance depending on die result)?

Still not a fan. Because it means that the following situation (from a real game) can't happen without blowing Action Surge:

Dragon has taken off and is 10' above the ground, near a force barrier/wall. It's badly hurt. Fighter wants to take it down. He asks "can I parkour off that force wall, using it as a springboard to get up to where I can smack the dragon"? I say "sure, but that's more than you can normally jump even so. Make a Moderate Strength (Athletics) check to make up the difference". Rolls, total of 20-something. Gets up, nails the dragon with Extra Attack, drops it. Asks "Can I do a superhero landing on top of it as it falls?" I say "sure, make a Hard Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, falling prone otherwise". Makes the check on a nat 20 (with negative DEX and no proficiency). Epic times were had by everyone.

[MadBear]

This may be one of the first 1 D&D threads where we are all almost universally in agreement about something. Good job designers, you're finally bringing people together. :)

(I've been a huge fan of most of the current content coming out for the new D&D, which has been hit/miss here so far)

[Segev]

The current default for a "long jump" is that you can clear without a check a horizontal distance <= STR score (with running start) OR horizontal distance <= STR score / 2 without one. If height matters, you may (DM's option) need to make (no action) a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear an obstacle no more than 1/4 of that distance in height (hitting it on a failure).

Long jumps are always thus assumed to be totally flat, with any vertical movement being treated similarly to jumping further than your max distance. Which I find to be somewhat dumb.

Personally, I'd say "you get 1/4 of the jump distance in height for free. Make a check to go beyond the norm either horizontally or vertically (or both)."Ah, fair enough. I actually have no problem with "DC 10 to clear 1/4 distance in height" as a guideline, especially since the abstraction of it means that clearance happens anywhere or everywhere along the jump - it could be a spike wall right at the start of the jump that you're clearing; it could be a step up to that height and the new floor extends to the end of your jump (and the floor is made of lava or some other reason you don't want to just run across it), or it could be at the very end before you land beyond it (e.g. jumping across a chasm from cliff-path to cliff-path, but the far side is 1/4 the jump distance higher than the near side). So, due to the abstraction and it not being "clear that height in the middle," I'm definitely fine with DC 10 as a baseline for me to work from!


Still not a fan. Because it means that the following situation (from a real game) can't happen without blowing Action Surge:

Dragon has taken off and is 10' above the ground, near a force barrier/wall. It's badly hurt. Fighter wants to take it down. He asks "can I parkour off that force wall, using it as a springboard to get up to where I can smack the dragon"? I say "sure, but that's more than you can normally jump even so. Make a Moderate Strength (Athletics) check to make up the difference". Rolls, total of 20-something. Gets up, nails the dragon with Extra Attack, drops it. Asks "Can I do a superhero landing on top of it as it falls?" I say "sure, make a Hard Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, falling prone otherwise". Makes the check on a nat 20 (with negative DEX and no proficiency). Epic times were had by everyone.
Out of curiosity, how much higher would the dragon have had to be before you decided it was a Hard Strength(Athletics) check to make up the difference? Very Hard? Nigh Impossible? Impossible?

Personally, I also dislike punishing players for flair. If you'd told me I needed to make that roll to make the superhero landing, unless I felt the risked damage and loss of dignity was not of consequence, I probably would disappointedly say, "Eh, he lands normally, then." Unless that DC 20 roll was to land without penalty, period, and the "superhero landing" visual was just his fluff for how he landed without penalty. In which case, cool. :smallcool:

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. Out of curiosity, how much higher would the dragon have had to be before you decided it was a Hard Strength(Athletics) check to make up the difference? Very Hard? Nigh Impossible? Impossible?

2. Personally, I also dislike punishing players for flair. If you'd told me I needed to make that roll to make the superhero landing, unless I felt the risked damage and loss of dignity was not of consequence, I probably would disappointedly say, "Eh, he lands normally, then." Unless that DC 20 roll was to land without penalty, period, and the "superhero landing" visual was just his fluff for how he landed without penalty. In which case, cool. :smallcool:

Probably "out of total move distance" is the boundary for impossible without special circumstances (a trampoline, for instance). So if the dragon had been 30+ feet in the air, Not Possible. But I don't think I'd go above Hard. And it'd depend on the situation exactly where that fell--in this case, the force barrier made some of the distance and had been established to be "springy". So...sliding scale.

2. The DC 20 was "no penalty at all" landing. And in any case, failure would have just meant a different (less cool) description, since the combat was over when the dragon died (so prone is meaningless).

[Damon_Tor]

Maybe the jump rules are the equivalent of the infamous battle chess duck? Something added for reviewers to focus on, but trivial to undo? At most charitable, it's a "are you paying attention? Then you'll say that this sucks. If you don't say anything, we can deweight your other feedback since you don't know much."

Think this is correct. Moreover, I think it's obviously correct.

[Person_Man]

I suggest that the jump rules be as simple as possible. Otherwise most players will simply ignore then, leading to arguments and confusion when they actually become critical to jump over lava or whatever. Same deal with climb, swim, grapple, shove, etc. Having extra steps or a special fixed DC that you have to look up mid-session is always going to be a loser. You just need a general principle thats easy to remember.

[Joe the Rat]

I think, where there are dice to be rolled in connection to movement, it should be part of the movement "action." Ditto goes for acrobatics or athletics for any other tricky footing, bounding, squeezing, tumbling activity. I'd consider throwing the "exceed your limits" as an Action, on top of the current baseline, but only if we can find a way to not hamstring the martials. requiring a Dash, or falling into "replaces an attack" a la the shove and grab of old.


Hm. Use the jumping rules from 5.0 as a base part of movement, then add, maybe, a "leap" action that uses the 5.1 rules? This becomes HOW you jump further than your strength score: it takes an action and an athletics check, guarantees you 5 extra feet, and can go up to your movement extra distance.

Not quite sure I like this. For reference of where I'm coming from, I like the "hang time" model of jumping past your movement distance. While I acknowledge it gets a little weird if you decide to dash to finish the jump NOW rather than hanging in mid-air to finish the jump next turn, for the most part, I don't see it as any more "reality-breaking" than the fact that people move and then stand still for six seconds in combat. What's "really" happening in combat isn't that people move 30 or 60 feet and then stand still for six seconds while everyone else takes their turn to move 30 feet and do something; it's all happening simultaneously and if you dash for two turns straight, you never necessarily stopped running to get from one place to the other.

Similarly, when you engage in the "hang time" rules, you aren't actually hanging in mid air; you are making one jump that is continuous in the game world. It's just that the same thing that makes you seem to run 60 feet then stand still for six seconds makes you jump part of the way and then seem to hang in the air for six seconds. If it weren't a turn-based game, you'd make one smooth, continuous jump that just happens to cross over the invisible temporal boundary between rounds.

Coming from that view on how jumping works in 5.0, I don't like anything that starts limiting jumping distance by movement speed, as I view them as separate things that have only coincidental relation to each other (in that jumping may consume movement). I don't like the idea that the jump action limits your jump distance to your speed, and it doesn't work to just combine the two rules for my taste in the matter.

I'm agreeing on the combined model - my thought is keeping the same baseline jump (Str feet / 3+str mod feet), and make adding distance a DC10 check - getting an extra foot of distance per point over 10 / foot of height per 2 points over 10, halving the distances if you don't have the 10' run-up. This does give joe average a shot at some extreme leaps, and downright ridiculous numbers for the mighty, but I prefer to err heroic. Let the expert rogue parkour the hell out of that corner.

One thought on avoiding hangtime is a "required dash" for long jumps - exceeding your move requires dashing to make up the difference. To be clear, it's not making the long leap that's the action, but going for more than what you can normally hustle. This does gets weird if you Action first, then go for a long, probably magically enhanced leap. I'd be inclined to flex around the end-of-arbitrary-time-block, but I also want to avoid a scenario where your leap seems slower if you are using actions to do other things. Dual wielding repeating hand crossbows does not make you slow down, no matter what John Woo thinks.

[Dr.Samurai]

As someone that really loves using Dash and Boots of Striding and Springing to leap over a just-cast Wall of Stone with a 40ft jump and a DC 10 Athletics check in combat, I REALLY hope the jump rules return to normal. Especially on a Frenzied Berserker, or Battlerager, or someone with Charger, it's nothing but joy to leap over an enemy caster's wall in a single bound and swing an axe to their face :smallbiggrin:.

[Segev]

One thought on avoiding hangtime is a "required dash" for long jumps - exceeding your move requires dashing to make up the difference. To be clear, it's not making the long leap that's the action, but going for more than what you can normally hustle. This does gets weird if you Action first, then go for a long, probably magically enhanced leap. I'd be inclined to flex around the end-of-arbitrary-time-block, but I also want to avoid a scenario where your leap seems slower if you are using actions to do other things. Dual wielding repeating hand crossbows does not make you slow down, no matter what John Woo thinks.

One way to avoid weirdness like dashing make you finish a jump faster than you started it would be to make you dash on a turn you start mid-air iff you dashed on the turn you started the jump. You can choose not to dash if you land before expending all your movement, but otherwise must if you dashed on the turn prior. And you may not dash if you don't land and you didn't dash on the turn prior. (Wonky wording, but all it is is keeping your aerial speed consistent.) Not sure it's really necessary, though. Manipulating the jump speed mid jump has minimal impact and can be back-reasoned into how it worked in-narrative easily enough.

[Damon_Tor]

I figured I'd link this here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650354-Why-dont-we-just-have-a-jump-speed

I this as a sort of compromise between the insane situation they've stuck us with and something that might potentially be playable.