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

[Oofta]

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: ???

You seriously don't see the difference between the two scenarios? In my scenario there's no reason from the PC's perspective to slow down or stop moving. The player is not the one choosing to stop before their full movement is done. You are deciding that they can't suspend their movement mid-air.

In your scenario the PC decides to not continue movement because it would expose them to attacks. It's apples and oranges, a false comparison.

We have turns because we need to split up the activities of the PCs and monsters into bite-size chunks. From the PC's perspective they are moving full speed and leaping over a chasm. Other PCs and monsters may be doing stuff at roughly the same time.

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



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.



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.

I run games using in-world logic from the PCs perspective. Turns do not exist as far as the PC is concerned. Rules do not exist as far as the PCs are concerned, although they do of course inform the players what activities the PC can take. Hit points don't exist, although people have a general idea of how hurt they are. Sometimes that means I don't strictly follow the letter of the rules. I'm a rebel like that.

If a PC is leaping through the air over a chasm, at some point in time they will be mid-air. It doesn't matter if that point in time corresponds to a turn or not.

 

[Oofta]

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”.

Based on how you run the game, maybe he has a point.

Kidding aside, there's nothing wrong with how you run your games. What bothers me is that you conflate things like not continuing movement because you risk an opportunity attack with not continuing movement because the turn ends. There is no wrong way to play D&D, but there are poor debating techniques.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Gms are free to house rule any part of the game they want so hovering in mid air until whatever time you get to take a new move is fine... Not one i would embrace as lotsa of trouble cases arise and it just seems to not be needed.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

If a 1st level fighter or rogue with two weapons wanted to:
Strike this guy (resolved and goes down) them move to that other guy and strike him how would you play that out if...

A - the other guy was 25 feet away (within normal move)

B- the other guy was 45' away (outside notmal move and strike but within normal move plus 10' jump)

C - the other guy was 55' away (outside normal move and extra jump)

For me, since i simply rule jumps are a part of your normal move and no carryover mid-jump or advanced for narrative stuff... A would play out as strike done this turn and both B and C would be "you cant get close enough to get your second swing off this turn, do you still want to move there?"

I am pretty sure you would be on the same page for A and C but if you choose to not want to stop the player from getting all his possibles just because he runs short of movement, how you would resolve B i am unsure of.

Would you let him get that delayed bonus attack from this turn added to next turn when he caught the guy? Would you allow him to go ahead and take the bit of next turns movement now so he doesnt lose the bonus attack? Would you be ok with him losing the attack posdibility but remain dissatisfied if another guy lost a little movement jump?

Characters lose "possible gains" all the time and often its over a small difference in positioning when they start.

But again, by rule nothing is lost if you only have 10' of move when you start a jump... You jump the 10' barring other circumstances.

 

[Oofta]

If a 1st level fighter or rogue with two weapons wanted to:
Strike this guy (resolved and goes down) them move to that other guy and strike him how would you play that out if...

A - the other guy was 25 feet away (within normal move)

B- the other guy was 45' away (outside notmal move and strike but within normal move plus 10' jump)

C - the other guy was 55' away (outside normal move and extra jump)

For me, since i simply rule jumps are a part of your normal move and no carryover mid-jump or advanced for narrative stuff... A would play out as strike done this turn and both B and C would be "you cant get close enough to get your second swing off this turn, do you still want to move there?"

I am pretty sure you would be on the same page for A and C but if you choose to not want to stop the player from getting all his possibles just because he runs short of movement, how you would resolve B i am unsure of.

Would you let him get that delayed bonus attack from this turn added to next turn when he caught the guy? Would you allow him to go ahead and take the bit of next turns movement now so he doesnt lose the bonus attack? Would you be ok with him losing the attack posdibility but remain dissatisfied if another guy lost a little movement jump?

Characters lose "possible gains" all the time and often its over a small difference in positioning when they start.

But again, by rule nothing is lost if you only have 10' of move when you start a jump... You jump the 10' barring other circumstances.

There always has to be some kind of action economy going on which will affect how much a PC can do on their turn. Well, that and bonus actions are a little funky to begin with. But in your scenario the PC can't get a bonus action attack because they don't have a valid target. They are a flurry of attack but that doesn't mean they have a swing "loaded" just waiting to be triggered. They'll still get in the extra attack next round. On the other hand I look at actions and bonus actions as a "budget" that can be spent on a turn and if you want to do your bonus action first I'm completely OK with that.

That to me is different than a legitimate movement cut short because of the end of a turn. As always, I have no problem with the other ruling.

 

[5ekyu]

There always has to be some kind of action economy going on which will affect how much a PC can do on their turn. Well, that and bonus actions are a little funky to begin with. But in your scenario the PC can't get a bonus action attack because they don't have a valid target. They are a flurry of attack but that doesn't mean they have a swing "loaded" just waiting to be triggered. They'll still get in the extra attack next round. On the other hand I look at actions and bonus actions as a "budget" that can be spent on a turn and if you want to do your bonus action first I'm completely OK with that.

That to me is different than a legitimate movement cut short because of the end of a turn. As always, I have no problem with the other ruling.

The only reason they can't get the attack on this turn is running out of movement on this turn to get to an enemy. If they had more movement they could.

The only reason they cant make a 30' jump across the chasm this turn is running out of movement on this turn. If they had more movement they could.

Side note - With feats like mobile or charger they likely could have gotten the jump or attack in with the right choices. So, how did they spend their asi/feat budget?



Yeah, uh huh, different.

 

[Hriston]

You seriously don't see the difference between the two scenarios? In my scenario there's no reason from the PC's perspective to slow down or stop moving. The player is not the one choosing to stop before their full movement is done. You are deciding that they can't suspend their movement mid-air.

No, the player is the one deciding to end their turn without using every foot of movement because their PC is already in the position in which they need to be to jump at the beginning of their next turn. The PC doesn’t need a reason because in the fiction they are NOT stopping or slowing down. From the PC’s perspective within the fiction, turns and movement don’t exist.

In your scenario the PC decides to not continue movement because it would expose them to attacks. It's apples and oranges, a false comparison.

I can see the difference from the PC’s point of view, but not so much from the player’s, and after all it’s the player that makes the decisions, not the PC. PCs don’t actually decide anything. In both situations the player knows more movement is available and decides not to use it because it’s the more desirable option. The player in your scenario ends their turn at the edge of the chasm so the PC can leap across in the next round. The player in my scenario ends their turn within reach of the orcs because they don’t want to draw opportunity attacks.

We have turns because we need to split up the activities of the PCs and monsters into bite-size chunks. From the PC's perspective they are moving full speed and leaping over a chasm. Other PCs and monsters may be doing stuff at roughly the same time.

Yes, I agree, and I just think a jump ought to be part of one bite-size chunk or the other, not split up between two bite-size chunks. I think this works better as a simulation too because an actual jump happens very quickly.

I run games using in-world logic from the PCs perspective. Turns do not exist as far as the PC is concerned. Rules do not exist as far as the PCs are concerned, although they do of course inform the players what activities the PC can take. Hit points don't exist, although people have a general idea of how hurt they are. Sometimes that means I don't strictly follow the letter of the rules. I'm a rebel like that.

If a PC is leaping through the air over a chasm, at some point in time they will be mid-air. It doesn't matter if that point in time corresponds to a turn or not.

I think it’s a matter of preference. I’d rather the entire jump happen in a single turn.

 

[Hriston]

Based on how you run the game, maybe he has a point.

Kidding aside, there's nothing wrong with how you run your games. What bothers me is that you conflate things like not continuing movement because you risk an opportunity attack with not continuing movement because the turn ends. There is no wrong way to play D&D, but there are poor debating techniques.

The turn ending is not the reason for ending your move. It’s quite the opposite. When the player has used as much of their movement as they wish and taken their action, etc., their turn ends. It’s a matter of the player doing that and then voluntarily being done with their turn. The same is true in both play examples.

As for why the player decided not to use every foot of movement available, it depends on the specifics of the situation. In my example, it was to avoid opportunity attacks. In your example, it was because the edge of the chasm had already been reached and there was nothing to be gained by moving the PC any farther by using the remaining movement.

 

[Oofta]

Done with the never-ending thread. Have fun, rule the way that makes sense to you. This is such a corner case that I doubt it ever comes up in actual game play anyway.

 

[jgsugden]

Done with the never-ending thread. Have fun, rule the way that makes sense to you. This is such a corner case that I doubt it ever comes up in actual game play anyway.

If the characters have the right abilities, it comes up a lot. If not, rarely. Regardless, my calculations is that you were three messages from unanimous agreement, but that progress is now ruined. So sad. At least we can all agree that if you leap, rather than jump, the opposite answer is correct.