D&D 5E Boots of Striding and Springing.......kinda lame

Ahrimon

Bourbon and Dice
Because the combined effects seems egregious, or because the effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine and that feels appropriate in this instance?

I don't know if it's in the rules for 5e, but I would be inclined to either say that they don't stack taking advantage and all of the other non-stacking 5e examples or to use the old 3e rule and simply increase the multiplier. i.e. x2 and x2 would be x3 total.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer
I don't know if it's in the rules for 5e...
It's not. There are very few multipliers in the system, so a general rule of what to do when more than one applies isn't really needed like it was in the editions which specified to do something other than multiply normally when multiple multipliers applied to the same thing.
 

mrpopstar

Sparkly Dude
;)


Yep, was thinking that elf got +10 ft, but of course that's wrong. :(
I thought I was missing a key 5 feet somewhere! Hehe

Well, that depends how you stack the item effects. I'd probably play as you suggest: SotW + boots = 5x; SotW + boots + spell = 8x. Actually I'd probably be even less generous, and say SoTW gives you and increase of +1x, the boots and spell both give increases of +2x, for a net increase of +5x. So at a base of 12, you'd jump 6*12 = 72 ft all combined.

But by the book I guess you would just continue to multiply, so SotW + boots + spell would be 2*3*3 = 18x. So for a base of 12 ft. you'd be at 216 ft.
You're right, you're right.
 

mrpopstar

Sparkly Dude
It's not. There are very few multipliers in the system, so a general rule of what to do when more than one applies isn't really needed like it was in the editions which specified to do something other than multiply normally when multiple multipliers applied to the same thing.
Yeah, it just doesn't feel right to be multiplying that many times. LOL
 

No -- the jump could be beside a monster, passing within 5' of them (assuming 5' reach). There is no need to make this more complicated than the simple examples.
That's weird because it's hard to visualize. Usually, when you are making a melee attack, you're projecting force in the direction of your target. It doesn't make sense to me that you could be moving in a straight line, and maintaining that momentum, while projecting force perpendicular to your movement. In that scenario, it's more likely that you're actually coming to a stop - or at least slowing down - before you make your attack.

Again, No, because you also have an action on your turn. Only if you move 60' in a round you are literally moving for the full 6 seconds (though you still have a reaction and a bonus action, so it's not literally "literally").
If you're taking the Dash action, then you're actually dashing. By focusing your effort on just moving, you're able to travel faster than if you try to do other stuff while you're running. Your movement speed is how far you can move during six seconds, while doing other stuff. It's not like Actions take 3 seconds and Movement takes 2 seconds and Reactions and Bonus actions each take half a second; your Movement takes six seconds, and all of the other Actions you perform also take six seconds.

D&D combat occurs in turns, that are tightly regulated by the initiative sequence. We both know that. My post above to Caliban answers this.
For the purpose of mechanical resolution, combat sequence is governed by the turn structure. Within the actual game world, movement is continuous.

The rules for jumping are written from a common-sense perspective, using natural language. If you want to make a long jump, then you need a running start. It doesn't matter whether that movement occurred on your previous turn, or your current turn, as long as you have your running start before you make the jump.

If it helps, imagine that you have two runners crossing a 60-foot field, followed by a 10-foot crevice at the far end. One of the runners is a dwarf (speed 25), the other is a human (speed 30), and both have Strength 10. By your logic, the dwarf would be able to jump across the crevice on their second turn by dashing 50 feet in the first round and then moving ten feet before jumping; but the human wouldn't be able to make the jump without slowing down or doubling back, since dashing 60 feet on the first round puts them right at the edge of the crevice with no room to build speed. And that outcome doesn't describe a situation that makes sense - the human should be able to make that jump while continuing to run in a straight line.

Unless you want to argue rules as physics, that combat rounds aren't an abstraction, and that characters are aware that it's possible to make a long jump after running for 4 or 8 seconds but not after running for 6 seconds.
 
Last edited:



CapnZapp

Legend
It's also interesting because here (and not with the rules for long jumping) there is a ruling for what happens when a jump exceeds a characters' movement. I've seen it ruled that the movement carries over into the next round. For this magic item, though that is specifically forbidden. If the sentence does anything, then, it reduces the effectiveness when measured against a Jump spell.
Now we need a source for that ruling, otherwise your case is just an artefact of a generous home DM.

Meaning it's more likely the specific mention here isn't anything special, and is not meant to be an additional hindrance compared to the spell.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Aside from dashing to increase your move speed, you could also do your run-up in the previous round, or outside of combat where the abstraction of rounds is not necessary. If you need to make a 30' jump across a chasm, you can still do it, even if the specific wording here makes it unlikely to work during combat.
The fact that you can theoretically do something should not overshadow the overall crappiness of this item.

Let's take a step back.

The item were awesome (in a low-level kind of way) in previous editions.

What happened that made that unacceptable in 5th edition?

Nothing is my answer - there is no good reason for their crappiness in 5E. Hence they are simply crappy, no need to try to honeycoat it.

Let's simply accept that the 5E created a turd here and move on. There are other things about 5E that are good, there really is no need to rescue this particular item from the scrap heap.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
It's not just the boots. A whole lot of magic items in 5e are just crappy, and the disappointment of rolling something like an Amulet of Proof Against Detection is obvious around the table.
1) That's a different subject.
2) All items can't be good, or none of them will be good.
3) Some items need to suck to make the others shine.

Besides, magic items are MUCH more exciting and interesting in 5E than the previous edition, so I'll happily take them all.
 

Remove ads

Top