D&D 5E Hang Time - What if you jump farther than your speed?

[Hriston]

So the administrative concept of a round limits the story. That is what people are saying is a bad result. How would you like it if a movie character stopped for no story based reason in the middle of a chase?

This isn't what I'm advocating, though. You don't seem to get that in the fiction there is no break between one round and the next. The story doesn't include a moment where PC B is stopping at the edge of the chasm. The story I'm imagining is that B runs up to the edge and leaps across, which I think is the same story you imagine. So our difference isn't in the resulting story, but rather it's in how we choose to adjudicate the game at the table, specifically how we set the timing of the ending of one turn and the beginning of the next one.

...which puts him arbitrarily 10 feet back of where he would be had the administrative concept of a round not limited his movement.

I think this is what the issue seems to be about, despite the protestations of "story first". You feel the player is owed that 10 feet of movement in this round and is entitled to extract every last bit of movement from the system possible. I feel the game plays better when movement is divided into resolvable chunks. The player's character will get to cross that 10 feet in the next round when it can be resolved. Movement is only limited per turn. It isn't a finite resource. Feet are everywhere.

It is no hard at all. I've been using it for a long time. Your approach is simpler, but constrains the story under administrative abstract non-story limitations.

Again, there's no change in the story, just whether we get to that part of the story in this round or in the next round.

Great. Then why can't he move further in the round? He still has 2/3 of the round left. If the mechanics don't fit, you must acquit.

Because the round isn't primarily a measure of time. It's a measure of action (and movement). You can only do so much on your turn.

Run it how you want - each DM can decide what makes sense to them. Story first DMs will do something like what I do, but DMs that favor maximum simplicity and do not see a problem with arbitrary administrative features constraining the story will do something more like you.

I don't understand how you actually think the story is constrained, so it seems like a false argument to me. All we're talking about is in which round does a certain part of the story take place.

 

[Hriston]

This is a great point.

The rules do say that you can "cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." (BR, p.64, emphasis mine) Otherwise, you're presumed to be making a standing long jump and can only get half that distance.

However, there is nothing explicit in the jump rule that says the 10 foot run has to be in the same round as the jump, only that the 10 foot run has to "immediately" precede the jump. So if a character ends one turn by moving at least 10 feet, it's reasonable to argue that this counts for the "immediate" 10 foot run needed to do a running long jump to start the next turn, since (as you note elsewhere) the characters don't perceive the turn order as 'I do this then wait six seconds before I do that'. Even better, this leaves the character with a full movement allowance to get maximum distance on the jump.

A DM could rule that "immediately before" means "in the same round as" -- I know I've done that without realizing it in the past -- but it's not strictly required by the rule we're discussing here.

Good catch.

--
Pauper

Thanks for elaborating and explaining my point better than I did. I think it may have been missed by others due to the terseness of my prose.

 

[Oofta]

Again, there's no change in the story, just whether we get to that part of the story in this round or in the next round.

While you may want to rule that you can't end your turn mid-air, to say that there is no change to the story is simply not true. If someone could leap the distance there are instances where they can't use their full movement, the story changes.

If a PC could leap 20 feet but only have 15 foot of movement left on their turn, that 15 foot of movement is effectively lost for no reason other than the game mechanic of turns. Whether that matters to you is personal preference and style, but it does matter.

 

[Tormyr]

While you may want to rule that you can't end your turn mid-air, to say that there is no change to the story is simply not true. If someone could leap the distance there are instances where they can't use their full movement, the story changes.

If a PC could leap 20 feet but only have 15 foot of movement left on their turn, that 15 foot of movement is effectively lost for no reason other than the game mechanic of turns. Whether that matters to you is personal preference and style, but it does matter.

Not to mention that now the minions can just shove the PC off the cliff, knock them prone, or grapple them while the PC is waiting until next turn jump.

 

[Hriston]

While you may want to rule that you can't end your turn mid-air, to say that there is no change to the story is simply not true. If someone could leap the distance there are instances where they can't use their full movement, the story changes.

If a PC could leap 20 feet but only have 15 foot of movement left on their turn, that 15 foot of movement is effectively lost for no reason other than the game mechanic of turns. Whether that matters to you is personal preference and style, but it does matter.

The idea that the 15 feet is lost because it wasn't used is a bit odd to me. Just because there's an upper limit to the amount of movement you can use doesn't mean you've lost anything by not using it. Technically, you're allowed to take a bonus action every turn, but frequently there isn't one to take. No one complains in that situation that they've lost their bonus action. I'd put this in the same category.

And how is it part of the story that the PC has lost 15 feet of its movement? Here people are telling me that the turn is a mechanical construct (which I agree with), but that a PC not being able to use 100% of its turn-allocated movement is a change to the story. It isn't. It's a game mechanic affecting a game mechanic.

 

[Pauper]

While you may want to rule that you can't end your turn mid-air, to say that there is no change to the story is simply not true. If someone could leap the distance there are instances where they can't use their full movement, the story changes.

Necessarily for the worse, though?

I mean, the good guys can use this rule to race up and tackle an opponent before they can finish their leap over the chasm and escape. Not to mention that's a pretty heroic thing to do, and by making this ruling, you don't have to 'house rule' the question for PCs to tackle monsters or other bad guys while letting the heroes get away scot-free.

If a PC could leap 20 feet but only have 15 foot of movement left on their turn, that 15 foot of movement is effectively lost for no reason other than the game mechanic of turns. Whether that matters to you is personal preference and style, but it does matter.

I'm not sure it does matter in the general sense; a player who believes he's not effectively playing his character unless he uses every action and inch of movement available to him every turn is a player who isn't playing a 'story' game, after all. Characters in fiction don't have demonstrable perfect efficiency in whatever the mechanical basis for their actions are, assuming there even is one, so perfect efficiency in game rules isn't really a necessary thing for characters in story-based RPGs.

Maybe that calculus changes if we're talking about a tactical RPG, sure, but in that case, dealing with the administrative limitations imposed by the game mechanics is part of the challenge.

This is why I suspect the 'argument from story' isn't really an attempt to enable narrative-style play via the jumping rules, but rather just to come up with a palatable explanation for otherwise exploiting the jumping rules to one's own benefit. But I could be wrong.

(Also, for those not familiar with the acronym: In My Not-So-Humble Opinion.)

--
Pauper

 

[Oofta]

The idea that the 15 feet is lost because it wasn't used is a bit odd to me. Just because there's an upper limit to the amount of movement you can use doesn't mean you've lost anything by not using it. Technically, you're allowed to take a bonus action every turn, but frequently there isn't one to take. No one complains in that situation that they've lost their bonus action. I'd put this in the same category.

And how is it part of the story that the PC has lost 15 feet of its movement? Here people are telling me that the turn is a mechanical construct (which I agree with), but that a PC not being able to use 100% of its turn-allocated movement is a change to the story. It isn't. It's a game mechanic affecting a game mechanic.

In my sample scenario it's the difference between the barbarian catching the BBEG (or at least being in close pursuit) and not catching him.

I view D&D as a crude fantasy-story simulator first and game second. There's no reason for the PC to not break away from combat and immediately leap across the chasm from a narrative perspective.

Normally the PC can move up to 60 feet during a 6 second period (assuming dashing, etc), we are limiting them to 45 feet for no reason other than that they would end their turn mid-air. If you can't accept or see that 15 feet of movement is not being used effectively we are no longer having an honest discussion on the merits of the issue IMHO.

I don't care which way you rule. I'd even be OK with it if you were my DM. Just don't say that it doesn't matter, or that the narrative, the story does not change to fit the ruling.

 

[Oofta]

This is why I suspect the 'argument from story' isn't really an attempt to enable narrative-style play via the jumping rules, but rather just to come up with a palatable explanation for otherwise exploiting the jumping rules to one's own benefit. But I could be wrong.

As stated in my other post, I view D&D as a crude fantasy-story simulator first and game second. There's a lot of things that don't make all that much sense because we have to have vast simplifications of that fantasy world. Limiting your jump to the movement available on your turn doesn't have to be one of those simplifications.

Do what makes sense to you and your group. I've given how I handle it and why. Good gaming!

 

[5ekyu]

In my sample scenario it's the difference between the barbarian catching the BBEG (or at least being in close pursuit) and not catching him.

I view D&D as a crude fantasy-story simulator first and game second. There's no reason for the PC to not break away from combat and immediately leap across the chasm from a narrative perspective.

Normally the PC can move up to 60 feet during a 6 second period (assuming dashing, etc), we are limiting them to 45 feet for no reason other than that they would end their turn mid-air. If you can't accept or see that 15 feet of movement is not being used effectively we are no longer having an honest discussion on the merits of the issue IMHO.

I don't care which way you rule. I'd even be OK with it if you were my DM. Just don't say that it doesn't matter, or that the narrative, the story does not change to fit the ruling.

The flaw in the logic is thinking movement has been lost.

A character can move 60'.

Some of that can be jumping. Some of that can be running. Some can be climbing. Etc.

The hang-up some seem to have is that jump is somehow EXTRA distance you can move.

Its not.

Its how much of your movement you can use as jump, not walk.

Things that can cause you to lose movement include difficult terrain, lower rates for climbing swiming, etc, but jumping never loses you movement.

Of course ending your move over a chasm might not be wise.

 

[Pauper]

As stated in my other post, I view D&D as a crude fantasy-story simulator first and game second. There's a lot of things that don't make all that much sense because we have to have vast simplifications of that fantasy world. Limiting your jump to the movement available on your turn doesn't have to be one of those simplifications.

Do what makes sense to you and your group. I've given how I handle it and why. Good gaming!

That's totally fair, and a decent justification for going against the printed rules in given circumstances. Not every DM will want to do it that way, perhaps because they don't see the game the same way you do, or because they prefer a more consistent expression of rules that limits discussion of rules at the table in favor of discussion of character actions and the adventure proper.

By presenting the reasons you are making the ruling you are making, you're helping other DMs decide if they should follow your lead or find some other solution that fits better with the style of game they want to run. That leads to better games for everyone!

--
Pauper