Raven Crowking said:
Sure, I can see that this is a "coolness vs. realism" issue....but I imagine that the same players who invoke "coolness" for their characters' actions might prefer a bit of "realism" when the NPCs start doing the same sorts of things.
Saying that there are consequences for a cool action actually increases its coolness IMHO. Falling damage, being prone, and AoOs mean that the campaign's greengrocers and mooks won't be copying the PC's performance. If the PC is built for this sort of action (monk levels, appropriate feats such as Instant Stand from Kingdoms of Kalamar Player's Guide, enough hps to absorb the damage) then you could certainly be KEWL with all-caps misspelling!
On the other hand, just because its a cool idea doesn't mean it should work. I could imagine a really cool scene where a fighter spontaneously starting casting fireballs, but it doesn't mean that I should allow a fighter in my campaign to do this.
You can build a character to do all sorts of things. Allowing a character to do anything simply because it is cool removes the benefit of effective character design.
RC
Well said
Nail said:
Exactly.
For this particular case, the movement off the cliff is a move action, not a five-foot step.
Since this is not covered in he rules directly (stepping into mid air) it is up to individual interpretation.
Rules:
Page 77 of the PHB (middle/lower right hand side) details this: See Jumping Down and Action. It indicates that jumping is a move equivalent action (and/or combined with a move action) and Jumping down falls under Jumping - thus it is an actual move equivalent action - and thus you cannot also make a full attack. A 5 foot step is still free (but you can’t move and take the 5 foot step as we all know).
Thus whilst there are rules about “Jumping Down” there are no rules regarding “stepping” off a ledge. I don’t see why one can’t do it at all; the logic against that is intrinsic and just because the rules say nothing does not mean it can’t be done.
In the Game- Our Characters
Some folks have talked about “what our characters know” and ‘don’t know” in the game; What a reasonable person would do. A reasonable person would not leave home and go about delving into ancient ruins to face the world’s deadliest minions – thus are adventurers reasonable people in that respect? Are they not “high risk takers”? As Brad Pitt (Achilles) said in the Movie “Troy” to the young boy who came to wake the hero and told the same of the foe that awaited he – “That is why no one will remember your name”
Are characters are heroes (or villains); the best of the best of the world; far braver than even the bravest. If it was stepping into molten lava as a DM you would allow it (even though you would know the player was daft)…why not thin air? They are that brave! No? They are that adventuresome? Don’t adventurers live to take risks? What if it were a Paladin who was to save the high priest of a LG temple one more hit on the bad guy and he is dead – would you allow him to do this; to sacrifice himself to save the priest? Slam into the ground after such a thing? Allow him to take that damage because that is what a paladin would do? Why not someone else? If your character were a samurai and wanted to commit suicide because of a great dishonor – would you not allow him to do that? But just because he is a samurai? Why not anyone else with great honor? The same logic applies – someone intentionally does something to cause themselves great harm – so I as the DM allow that great harm to come to pass.
Interpretation:
Thus my interpretation of this RAW undefined action revolves around "careful" and "careless". "Jumping down" is what is defined in the rules. It involves taking care to aim, to land; to attempt to land as safely as possible and the like – that takes a move action on its own or as part of a greater Jump action.
“Stepping off” is a careless act that results in a fall; an uncontrolled fall. If someone wants to step off the edge of a cliff and do it carelessly (as in actually stepping off) then they are going to pay a price - go to an empty pool and "jump down" into it. Then go back up and "walk of the edge" into it - there is a clear difference. In the first example you tend to land feet first (vertical), your body braced form the impact and ready to move with the force of the impact. Perhaps you fall down and perhaps even break an ankle. In the second example you land on your head, back, side, etc. Sure you might land upright, but you are still unprepared for the impact – the results of the concrete on your flesh and bones would be far more severe. However you can choose to do either. Spend the move action or don’t – depends on your medical coverage and sanity level.
Otherwise you are in a scenario where anytime anyone goes off a ledge the get charged a move action (unless forced there) and we know that is not the case - we know because as I stated above you can indeed just "step" - it hurts but you can do it. But then how do you prevent the PC from “stealing” the move action with the fall? Which is clearly the case in the starter of this thread – where the PC wanted to not only steal a move action but also “shoot on the run” at the same time!!!!!!
My house rule on this allows you to step into midair but then your turn ends - period; you cannot step into midair AND fall in the same round. You can jump down and fall – but not step and fall. Thus any full round action you choose to take must be taken BEFORE you step – or you just get that step with no other actions. The following round you fall first and take maximum damage with no chance to save for anything and automatically end up prone as well as generating AoO's.
However you do get your “free action” that round (moving/falling) and get to where you wanted to go (the ground) and still have a full set of actions to take. Now if you don’t hit the ground that round (due to the distance of falling) you still get your actions (including full round) but I do rule that you are still falling uncontrolled (spinning, bouncing off the wall next to you, etc.). On the third round – WHACK same deal; max damage, no saves, prone. I have yet to see a fourth round…the third round happened twice; with deadly effects.
Additionally my house rules are simple in general - if you do something that will hurt with carelessness and intentionality then you take the max damage – almost like doing a coup de grace on oneself as noted above. For example if someone chose to "walk into" a blazing fire (such as to show their bravery to someone) then max damage - But if the say went in there to retrieve a book that was burning that the needed; I would rule that they are taking some care to not get burned - so the dice are rolled.
Summary:
So essentially: you rule going over a cliff to ALWAYS be a “jumping down” or, in order to prevent the PC getting a free action for nothing put in place a house rule similar to mine.
All of it is interpretation and where the books do not define; house rules govern.
