Missing Rules

[iserith]

That is totally fine. What I at least was arguing against is your apparent view that this is objectively how the game works. it isn't. It is up the DM and DMs letting PCs just "try harder" are just as correct as you are. At my table (now that I've realized the rules in questions and the intent of the system) the way it works is you make an Athletics check vs DC 10. If you fail by 5 or more you only jump half your normal distance. For every 5 points you succeed by, you add 5 feet to your jump distance up to a total of twice your speed (as if you were using the dash action). And the thing is, I'm right. THAT is how the game works.

There is a standard of reasonable specificity laid out in several areas of the rules. Off the top of my head that includes trying to find hidden objects which requires players to be reasonably specific to have a chance at success, but other examples abound. Whether or not you demand any specificity at all is up to you.

 

[Reynard]

There is a standard of reasonable specificity laid out in several areas of the rules. Off the top of my head that includes trying to find hidden objects which requires players to be reasonably specific to have a chance at success, but other examples abound. Whether or not you demand any specificity at all is up to you.

Specific over general. The specific rule is that when you try and search you have to say where and maybe how. There is no such specific rule in Athletics. It simply states that you can use Athletics to make an unusually long jump. That is the specific rule in Athletics.

In any case, we are obviously not going to agree. I am not really trying to convince you of anything. I am glad your way works for you and wish you good gaming.

 

[iserith]

Specific over general. The specific rule is that when you try and search you have to say where and maybe how. There is no such specific rule in Athletics. It simply states that you can use Athletics to make an unusually long jump. That is the specific rule in Athletics.

In any case, we are obviously not going to agree. I am not really trying to convince you of anything. I am glad your way works for you and wish you good gaming.

If you want to retreat to the specific over general rule to try to win a point, then to be consistent in my view you have to admit that jumping a greater distance than normal only happens "in some circumstances." That is also a "specific rule," arguably more specific than the one you're citing. (That means I win, right?!) Then you have to think about what "in some circumstances" means. "You try to jump an unusually long distance." Okay. How? What is the character actually doing? What circumstances are making this possible where in other cases it would be impossible?

Those are the questions that need asking and answering before the DM calls for an ability check to resolve the outcome. In another game system, "making a Athletics check" would be a fine answer. But not in this one, where there is a responsibility on the part of the player to describe in a reasonably specific manner what he or she wants to do and a responsibility on the part of the DM to judge the uncertainty as to the outcome and whether there is a meaningful consequence of failure.

You don't have to play it this way, of course. Your game is not going explode because of the odd ability check for jumping farther than usual. But what I'm giving you is a way to think about the game in a way that helps you adhere to some of the values you claim to hold such as consistency and clarity, which I share.

 

[Umbran]

How so? How does having guidelines for adjudicating jumping make dungeon design difficult?

He said *improvising*, not designing.

If there are guidelines, then your physical description will largely set the difficulty. "Oh, crap, I didn't intend the jump to be so hard!" can become an issue when there are notable guidelines.

 

[Charlaquin]

At my table (now that I've realized the rules in questions and the intent of the system) the way it works is you make an Athletics check vs DC 10. If you fail by 5 or more you only jump half your normal distance. For every 5 points you succeed by, you add 5 feet to your jump distance up to a total of twice your speed (as if you were using the dash action). And the thing is, I'm right. THAT is how the game works.

It’s really not, though. It’s a perfectly reasonable way to run the game, and there’s nothing at all wrong with this ruling. But it is a ruling you made up, which is contrary to the rules for resolving a jump that are written in the player’s handbook. More power to you for running the game in a way that works for you, but the rules that doesn’t change what is the standard method of resolving this action according to the rules that are written in the book.

 

[Reynard]

If you want to retreat to the specific over general rule to try to win a point, then to be consistent in my view you have to admit that jumping a greater distance than normal only happens "in some circumstances." That is also a "specific rule," arguably more specific than the one you're citing. (That means I win, right?!) Then you have to think about what "in some circumstances" means. "You try to jump an unusually long distance." Okay. How? What is the character actually doing? What circumstances are making this possible where in other cases it would be impossible?

Those are the questions that need asking and answering before the DM calls for an ability check to resolve the outcome. In another game system, "making a Athletics check" would be a fine answer. But not in this one, where there is a responsibility on the part of the player to describe in a reasonably specific manner what he or she wants to do and a responsibility on the part of the DM to judge the uncertainty as to the outcome and whether there is a meaningful consequence of failure.

You don't have to play it this way, of course. Your game is not going explode because of the odd ability check for jumping farther than usual. But what I'm giving you is a way to think about the game in a way that helps you adhere to some of the values you claim to hold such as consistency and clarity, which I share.

To be clear, I am not concerned about being right or wrong, since those values don't really apply to DMing. I do think that it might be worth really digging into the rules here, though, just as an exercise.

The exact text regarding jumping:

Your Strength determines how far you can jump. 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. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn’t matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. At your GM’s option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump’s distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it. When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone. High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your GM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can. You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus, you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1½ times your height.

The exact text regarding Athletics:

Athletics. Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming. Examples include the following activities:

You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.
You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump.
You struggle to swim or stay afloat in treacherous currents, storm-tossed waves, or areas of thick seaweed. Or another creature tries to push or pull you underwater or otherwise interfere with your swimming.

In neither of the above are the words "in some circumstances" found. So, according tot he rules, Strength checks and the Athletics skill cover jumping, including jumping unusually long distances. According to the rules on Ability checks, the DM sets the DC. (The DM also decides which Abilities and/or Skills apply, but in this case it seems clear that Strength and Athletics are applicable.)

Now it is true that in the DMG it says "Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking." It is clear from the context of this statement, coming immediately after a paragraph about using a skill with a different Ability than it is usually associated with, that this need for justification is not intended for explicitly allowed uses of skills. It is of course the DM's prerogative to say, "No," but that is inherent in the role of DM.

So, that is what the books say, at least. Every DM will run their table how they want, of course.

 

[Reynard]

It’s really not, though. It’s a perfectly reasonable way to run the game, and there’s nothing at all wrong with this ruling. But it is a ruling you made up, which is contrary to the rules for resolving a jump that are written in the player’s handbook. More power to you for running the game in a way that works for you, but the rules that doesn’t change what is the standard method of resolving this action according to the rules that are written in the book.

How do you mean "contrary to the rules for resolving a jump that are written in the player's handbook"? Do you mean because of the chance of jumping a shorter distance than your strength allows? Because remember the rules regarding Ability Checks require a chance of failure, otherwise no roll should be called for.

 

[Reynard]

He said *improvising*, not designing.

If there are guidelines, then your physical description will largely set the difficulty. "Oh, crap, I didn't intend the jump to be so hard!" can become an issue when there are notable guidelines.

Actually, they did.

I am really glad they don’t define this stuff. It would make designing or improvising cool dungeons a pain.

And the question still stands.

 

[iserith]

To be clear, I am not concerned about being right or wrong, since those values don't really apply to DMing. I do think that it might be worth really digging into the rules here, though, just as an exercise.

The exact text regarding jumping:

The exact text regarding Athletics:

In neither of the above are the words "in some circumstances" found. So, according tot he rules, Strength checks and the Athletics skill cover jumping, including jumping unusually long distances. According to the rules on Ability checks, the DM sets the DC. (The DM also decides which Abilities and/or Skills apply, but in this case it seems clear that Strength and Athletics are applicable.)

You'll find it if you keep reading the rules for Jumping. You stopped short.

Now it is true that in the DMG it says "Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking." It is clear from the context of this statement, coming immediately after a paragraph about using a skill with a different Ability than it is usually associated with, that this need for justification is not intended for explicitly allowed uses of skills. It is of course the DM's prerogative to say, "No," but that is inherent in the role of DM.

So, that is what the books say, at least. Every DM will run their table how they want, of course.

This section refers to a player asking for a particular proficiency to apply after the DM has already determined the need for an ability check, based on what the player described wanting the character to do. So at that point in the basic conversation of the game, the DM has described the environment, the player has describe what he or she wants to do, the DM has determined that the action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure, and has called for an ability check accordingly. The player then asks if a particular proficiency applies to the check.

That is quite different than "Can I make an Athletics check to jump farther than normal?"

Please also note that if you want to use a house rule at your table you don't actually have to try to justify it with the rules. It sounds like you want your players to be able to say "I make an Athletics check to jump further than normal..." and have some kind of static DCs to use to resolve it. That's not in line with the expectations set forth in the rules (it's much more in line with D&D 3e or D&D 4e in my view), but if it works for your table, then do it.

 

[Reynard]

You'll find it if you keep reading the rules for Jumping. You stopped short.



This section refers to a player asking for a particular proficiency to apply after the DM has already determined the need for an ability check, based on what the player described wanting the character to do. So at that point in the basic conversation of the game, the DM has described the environment, the player has describe what he or she wants to do, the DM has determined that the action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure, and has called for an ability check accordingly. The player then asks if a particular proficiency applies to the check.

That is quite different than "Can I make an Athletics check to jump farther than normal?"

Please also note that if you want to use a house rule at your table you don't actually have to try to justify it with the rules. It sounds like you want your players to be able to say "I make an Athletics check to jump further than normal..." and have some kind of static DCs to use to resolve it. That's not in line with the expectations set forth in the rules (it's much more in line with D&D 3e or D&D 4e in my view), but if it works for your table, then do it.

We have probably exhausted the potential for worthwhile debate on the topic, especially given our very different readings of that paragraph in the DMG. But thank you! It was a fun discussion.