Missing Rules

[iserith]

Which I have - like everyone in the real world who ever jumped an unusually long distance, I do it by trying hard. (In the real world people have jumped unusually long distances without using pogo sticks, ramps, valuts, parkour or magical enhancements.)

Nonsense. A player who says "I jump" or "I jump as hard as I can" has described an approach to the goal of getting over the cavern, and has not said what skill s/he wants to use.

It then falls to the GM to adjudicate this.

Clearly jumping is an approach that can achieve the goal of getting across a chasm. The only issue between us is that you regard it as certain that, everything else being equal, trying to jump further than what the rules on p 64 permit will fail. Whereas I take the view that the presence of the rule on p 59 implies that unusually long jumps are possible but not certain, and hence provide occasions for the use of the ability check mechanic.

I've said several times now that jumping an unusually long distance is possible. But it requires an approach that the DM will accept. There can be no success or even uncertainty until that time. That is the way actions are adjudicated in D&D 5e. You may say that "I try harder" is sufficient. I do not judge that it is. Neither of us are wrong. What judgment a DM makes in this realm is unassailable preference.

 

[Reynard]

Realistically, max distance is not achievable with each jump. Running long jumpers often have multiple feet of difference between their various jumps. If I wanted to introduce randomness into jumping, I'd probably allow up to 2/3 distance to be achieved automatically. If you want to go farther than that, you roll a D20 and add your athletics bonus and that's how far you would go to a maximum of your strength and a minimum of 2/3. Special circumstances such as bounding off of a rock or pulling yourself farther on a stalactite and the like would be required to go farther than strength distance, in order to keep it unusual.

Well, I wouldn't call for a roll on a routine jump with no pressure or tension. But if the party is being chased by a ravenous horde of zombies and they have more seconds to decide to fight or jump, that's an appropriately dramatic situation and a roll is called for. If the character that is really good at jumping (high strength with a proficiency in athletics)fails, something must have gone wrong. That's what the dice are for, to tell us that unexpected part of the story.

 

[clearstream]

This is what mine says on page 182.

"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."

Are you sure you are reading yours correctly? And if so, when did you buy yours? Maybe the earlier printings said something different.

You are correct, I misquoted. They are accommodating a player choosing to jump fewer than their reliable maximum. If they said "equal", a shorter jump would be literally disallowed.

Per RAW it is literally the case that you can jump "up to" your Strength because you can choose to jump less. Additionally, that section does not specify a check - not for jumping 1', nor for jumping any number of feet up to your Strength score. A check is only introduced with Athletics, for jumping an unusually long distance.

One might want to argue that jumping full Strength is an unusually long distance, but this would be cherry-picking because one could with equal justice count more than 50%, or that any other of a wide range of alternatives, as "unusually" long. The reasonable way to read this text is that the meaning of "usual" is supplied under Jumping because it would be perverse for the base text for Jumping to be discussing only "unusual" distances. And as noted, it would then offer no guideline as to what then counts as "usual".

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I wouldn't call for a roll on a routine jump with no pressure or tension.

That would mean that there is no risk and the PC is basically jumping on a flat road or something. If there is any risk of falling and taking damage, there is pressure. A gorge that is 10 feet wide and 10 feet deep is sufficient to hurt someone who falls, so it would not be a routine jump with no pressure.

 

[Maxperson]

You are correct, I misquoted. They are accommodating a player choosing to jump fewer than their reliable maximum. If they said "equal", a shorter jump would be literally disallowed.

Per RAW it is literally the case that you can jump "up to" your Strength because you can choose to jump less. Additionally, that section does not specify a check - not for jumping 1', nor for jumping any number of feet up to your Strength score. A check is only introduced with Athletics, for jumping an unusually long distance.

One might want to argue that jumping full Strength is an unusually long distance, but this would be cherry-picking because one could with equal justice count more than 50%, or that any other of a wide range of alternatives, as "unusually" long. The reasonable way to read this text is that the meaning of "usual" is supplied under Jumping because it would be perverse for the base text for Jumping to be discussing only "unusual" distances. And as noted, it would then offer no guideline as to what then counts as "usual".

5e is all about rulings over rules, so I expect that this was deliberate and they want each table to come up with what works for them.

 

[clearstream]

I've said several times now that jumping an unusually long distance is possible. But it requires an approach that the DM will accept. There can be no success or even uncertainty until that time. That is the way actions are adjudicated in D&D 5e. You may say that "I try harder" is sufficient. I do not judge that it is. Neither of us are wrong. What judgment a DM makes in this realm is unassailable preference.

I think it helps if players know what they can rely on. It is useful for groups to share a context, which is a valuable framework that rules provide. And mechanically at the table, it is valuable to have a fast method of knowing what counts as usual and doesn't need a check. It seems unnecessary to me for a DM to have to judge every jump, when they could just judge the unusual ones (pulling a stunt in mid-air, jumping further than your Strength, some other danger).

 

[robus]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. All we are saying is a player in our game would have to actually describe what the PC is doing. It's really simple and easy.

i dunno 300+ posts seems like a mountain.

Are we really just arguing about action adjudication? or are we arguing about the jumping rules? Every time i think we’ve settled on the former a person on the other side says no, you can’t jump beyond the limit prescribed in the book without some approach other than sheer effort. Basically that the rules say there’s a hard limit on pure jumping: guaranteed success followed immediately by guaranteed failure.

Which is it for you?

 

[iserith]

I think it helps if players know what they can rely on. It is useful for groups to share a context, which is a valuable framework that rules provide. And mechanically at the table, it is valuable to have a fast method of knowing what counts as usual and doesn't need a check. It seems unnecessary to me for a DM to have to judge every jump, when they could just judge the unusual ones (pulling a stunt in mid-air, jumping further than your Strength, some other danger).

Sure. They can rely on the rules for jumping normally and on the fact that their DM (me) will take a fair look at the approach they offer to the goal of jumping an unusually long distance and rule in a consistent manner.

 

[clearstream]

5e is all about rulings over rules, so I expect that this was deliberate and they want each table to come up with what works for them.

5e is very much about rules. It's the most sophisticated and in many areas the tightest rule system D&D has ever had.

However, in this case we are simply debating a literal meaning. "Up to" in games means that a player can choose any value from the minimum to the maximum. It is used by experienced designers for casing mechanics, where it is necessary to be clear that a player can choose a value lower than the maximum. WotC designers in particular use it as part of their vernacular.

Or to put that another way, where is a check stipulated under jumping, when you want to jump exactly your Strength in feet? If, as one might believe, a check is required, it is perverse to not discuss that check in that rules section.

 

[clearstream]

Are we really just arguing about action adjudication? or are we arguing about the jumping rules? Every time i think we’ve settled on the former a person on the other side says no, you can’t jump beyond the limit prescribed in the book without some approach other than sheer effort. Basically that the rules say there’s a hard limit on pure jumping: guaranteed success followed immediately by guaranteed failure.

I think the question comes down to how perversely one wants to understand the meaning of "unusual" (in Athletics). Where "unusual" is used, by implication it contrasts with some "usual" state of affairs. If that usual, for jumping, is not specified in the rules on jumping, where is it specified?
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] argues that this is left ambiguous to give scope for DM judgement. Say that's true? It's every DM for themselves because if Jumping doesn't tell you what usual jumping is, it's make it up as you go time.

Conversely, one can suppose the meaning of a "usual" jump is that distance listed under Jumping. The rules then play out well because if I have 10 Strength I can long jump 1-10' and an unusual long jump is any long jump I attempt over that. Of course, the rules are then nearly silent on the DC for that attempt: and here we find ourselves