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

[Oofta]

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

It's a question of whether or not you can end your turn in mid-air and then continue the jump on your next turn.

I rule that you can. You can jump as far as your strength or magic allow, whether or not the movement for that jump is broken up over 2 turns.

I also rule that when you are in mid-air people have a chance to shoot arrows at you, etc which may mean you won't stick the landing, but combat can be dangerous.

 

[Tormyr]

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.



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

I think the issue may be more that the ability to jump or not depends somewhat arbitrarily on where someone started rather than the ability of a creature. So someone who starts close enough to finish the jump can do so, but someone 5 feet or more short (for whatever reason) is unable to start the jump. It is RAW but seems to be a rather arbitrary limitation that is based more on the turn construct than a creature's ability. I get why they did that. It is simpler, and 5e errs on the side of simplicity more often than not. However, it doesn't sit well with me as a DM with this particular clash of turn limitation vs. movement. Mainly because it is doesn't fit with other forms of movement and can cause a change in what happens in the story based on a creature's starting location more than its ability.

My personal preference is to allow a jump if its distance* is within a creature's maximum available movement on a turn. So most creatures have 60 feet available (30 + Dash) while a human rogue would have 90 feet (30 + Dash + Dash). The creature starts its jump with whatever movement it has and must Dash with any available action or bonus action while in midair if it is needed to finish the jump. So no attacking in midair and then saying, "Oh gee, I ran out of movement!" Because of the house-ruled distance limitation based on total movement speed, the jump gets completed on the next turn, and the creature must use the Dash action if necessary to get the remaining movement to finish the jump. If the creature is knocked prone or is incapacitated and needed to use the Dash action to finish the jump's movement, they fall.

It is definitely a more complex rule, but in this case, I believe it allows the creature's choices to be established based on their ability rather than how far they started from the jump's edge and prevents the creature from spending an entire turn in the air. And it rarely comes up anyway.

*I also allow creatures to exceed their automatic jump distance with a successful Strength (Athletics) check with a DC equal to the distance in feet. Abilities that add to automatic jump distance, such as from the Champion or Thief, are added to the check, and the value of the check is doubled or tripled when the automatic jump distance is doubled or tripled (such as with haste).

 

[Hriston]

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.

That difference doesn't seem to be part of your scenario, though. In your "Scenario 1" you have the barbarian stop 10 feet short of the chasm for an unnecessary running start, which I wouldn't require since the barbarian is running up to the edge of the chasm at the end of his turn, immediately before jumping at the beginning of his next turn. It's unclear whether the goons are on the near or far side of the chasm, but either way I don't see a big difference between their moving to intercept the barbarian in "Scenario 1" and shooting arrows at him in "Scenario 2". If they are on the near side, they wouldn't be able to get between the barbarian and the chasm without the DM making him stop 10 feet short of it. I'm not convinced that the 10 feet farther away the barbarian is from the BBEG at the end of the round is going to make or break efforts to catch him. I suppose it could, but it's very situation dependent. For example, maybe the BBEG doesn’t end up using all of his movement due to encountering a similar obstacle himself.

I view D&D as a crude fantasy-story simulator first and game second.

For the record, I view D&D as a game the playing of which will almost certainly result in a story.

There's no reason for the PC to not break away from combat and immediately leap across the chasm from a narrative perspective.

Right, and how do you think resolving the PC's entire leap (instead of just the end of it) on his next turn is imposing some other narrative, considering that the PC is spending his first turn running up to the chasm?

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 accept that 15 feet of movement is being left on the table, yes. The player isn't using that part of the PC's movement because s/he wants to be in position to jump in the next round. But that isn't a "story" concern. It's a concern with character effectiveness.

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.

I think it matters to someone concerned with maximizing the round by round effectiveness of his or her PC, but I'm seeing the same narrative happening under both rulings: the PC runs to the edge of the chasm and jumps over it. Whether the PC jumps in round 1 or round 2 doesn't change the narrative because "round 1" and "round 2" are not part of the narrative.

 

[Oofta]

@Hriston,

I've given my reason and logic. You stop people because they don't have any more movement but then rule that they really were moving at the start of their next turn.

I had typed up a longer response but the short answer is: do whatever you want. Make D&D a game first and a story second. It's been a long week and I don't care.

 

[Hriston]

@Hriston,

I've given my reason and logic. You stop people because they don't have any more movement but then rule that they really were moving at the start of their next turn.

Me? No, that isn’t what I do. You say I stop people, by which I assume you mean the characters, but I don’t control the players’ characters. If a player’s action declaration contains more action than can be accomplished in their turn, I delay the resolution of any extra action until the next turn. For example, the dialogue at the table might go like this:

DM Hriston: The bad guy is on the other side of a 20 foot chasm and is heading for an exit at the rear of the cavern. It looks like he might get away this time. Barbarian Guy, what are you going to do this round?

Barbarian Guy: I can clear that chasm. I run up to it and jump across.

DM Hriston: The nearest edge of the chasm is about 50 feet away from you, so you’ll need to use your action to gain the extra movement you need to reach it, leaving you with only 10 feet of movement remaining. The chasm is 20 feet across, so jumping over it will have to wait until next round. Is that still what you want to do?

Barbarian Guy: We’ve got to catch this guy, and that looks like the most direct path, so yes.

DM Hriston: Okay, so you make it to the edge and you’re about to jump. Meanwhile...

I had typed up a longer response but the short answer is: do whatever you want. Make D&D a game first and a story second. It's been a long week and I don't care.

I don’t think you can claim a greater affinity for “story”. Our difference seems to be that while you, as you say, see the game as a story simulator, I see it as a story generator. I play to find out what happens in the story and am not particularly attached to a specific outcome. But I agree it’s no big deal. YMMV.

 

[Oofta]

Me? No, that isn’t what I do. You say I stop people, by which I assume you mean the characters, but I don’t control the players’ characters. If a player’s action declaration contains more action than can be accomplished in their turn, I delay the resolution of any extra action until the next turn. For example, the dialogue at the table might go like this:

DM Hriston: The bad guy is on the other side of a 20 foot chasm and is heading for an exit at the rear of the cavern. It looks like he might get away this time. Barbarian Guy, what are you going to do this round?

Barbarian Guy: I can clear that chasm. I run up to it and jump across.

DM Hriston: The nearest edge of the chasm is about 50 feet away from you, so you’ll need to use your action to gain the extra movement you need to reach it, leaving you with only 10 feet of movement remaining. The chasm is 20 feet across, so jumping over it will have to wait until next round. Is that still what you want to do?

Barbarian Guy: We’ve got to catch this guy, and that looks like the most direct path, so yes.

DM Hriston: Okay, so you make it to the edge and you’re about to jump. Meanwhile...



I don’t think you can claim a greater affinity for “story”. Our difference seems to be that while you, as you say, see the game as a story simulator, I see it as a story generator. I play to find out what happens in the story and am not particularly attached to a specific outcome. But I agree it’s no big deal. YMMV.

So in other words, you stop the barbarian from completing his entire move because he doesn't have enough movement to cross the chasm.

I bend the rules now and then to fit the narrative of the moment. Someone wants to swing from a chandelier, dive sword-first onto a monster or leap and grab on to that dragon? I'll make it work even if the letter of the rules says it doesn't work. Not everything the player attempts will work of course, it has to be logically consistent with D&D's action-movie universe. That's just fundamental to how I run my games. I think the guy leaping through the air while we cut to the bad guys is more dynamic and fun.

I'm not saying putting rules first, narrative second is wrong because if you and yours are having fun it's perfectly okay. It just bugs me that you won't just admit that you stop the barbarian from using the remainder of jumping because of your ruling. Or conflating your ruling somehow with character effectiveness, which to me is like saying the sky is blue because the ocean is wet.

You've decided that movement ends at the end of a turn and you can't end a turn mid-air. That's all you have to say.

 

[Hriston]

So in other words, you stop the barbarian from completing his entire move because he doesn't have enough movement to cross the chasm.

I don’t know what you mean by “completing his entire move”. If you mean that he isn’t moving a full 60 feet, I don’t understand. There are always situations in combat where a player decides not to use every last foot of his or her character’s movement. For example:

DM: The orcs look like they’re spoiling for a fight. What do you do?

Player: I close the distance between us and attack.

DM: Okay, they’re about 20 feet away. <Resolves attacks> Two orcs fall dead. You have 10 feet of movement left if you want to use it, but moving away will incur opportunity attacks from the remaining orcs.

Player: Hey! Why are you stopping me from completing my entire move?

DM: ???

I bend the rules now and then to fit the narrative of the moment. Someone wants to swing from a chandelier, dive sword-first onto a monster or leap and grab on to that dragon? I'll make it work even if the letter of the rules says it doesn't work. Not everything the player attempts will work of course, it has to be logically consistent with D&D's action-movie universe. That's just fundamental to how I run my games. I think the guy leaping through the air while we cut to the bad guys is more dynamic and fun.

Okay, but that’s just putting a narrative you prefer over a narrative you don’t prefer.

I'm not saying putting rules first, narrative second is wrong because if you and yours are having fun it's perfectly okay. It just bugs me that you won't just admit that you stop the barbarian from using the remainder of jumping because of your ruling. Or conflating your ruling somehow with character effectiveness, which to me is like saying the sky is blue because the ocean is wet.

I don’t see a conflict between the rules and the story the way you seem to. To me, it isn’t a zero-sum game. The rules are an input into the resulting narrative. I don’t stop the barbarian from using his remaining 10 or 15 feet of movement. He could make a detour on his way to the chasm or move to a different point along its edge. He could even use his remaining movement to hurl himself into the chasm if he wants to. But if his goal is to leap to the other side, and he doesn’t have enough movement to get there, then that declaration and the resolution of that action are going to have to wait until he does have enough movement.

You've decided that movement ends at the end of a turn and you can't end a turn mid-air. That's all you have to say.

It’s simpler than that.

First, I should think that your turn is when you get to decide how to use your movement, so of course when your turn ends your move has ended as well. But if you’re saying that I don’t consider movement in the fiction continuous from turn to turn, then no, I absolutely do. From a character’s perspective, the end of its current turn and the beginning of its next turn are pretty much a single instant in time. The barbarian could certainly move the obligatory 10 feet at the end of his turn and make the jump at the beginning of his next turn in one of my games because that’s what he was doing immediately before jumping.

As for my ruling (which I believe is consistent with official rulings on the matter of jumping), it’s that if your declared action for your turn requires movement, you must have enough movement on your turn to complete the declared action. The barbarian doesn’t have enough movement to complete the jump, so the jump can’t be part of his declared action for that turn.

 

[jgsugden]

I think we're really close to everyone agreeing on the one right way to do this... just a few ... more ... posts ...

 

[Hriston]

I think we're really close to everyone agreeing on the one right way to do this... just a few ... more ... posts ...

Well, we’d better come to an agreement soon. My son, who only plays computer rpg’s and refuses to play D&D, is now pointing to this issue as evidence that D&D is a “broken system”.

 

[jgsugden]

Well, we’d better come to an agreement soon. My son, who only plays computer rpg’s and refuses to play D&D, is now pointing to this issue as evidence that D&D is a “broken system”.

Your son must be very bright. He lept to that large conclusion... and it must have taken less than 6 seconds as you can't make a leap like that that stretches beyond a round...