Does Jump provoke AoOs?


log in or register to remove this ad

The +1 attack bonus is for "higher ground." By RAW, you don't get it simply by being at a higher base than the foe, you actually need to be on a solid surface. So, if it were a small hill or the back of a horse you would, but not by jumping up or even by using a fly speed to hover over the ground.
Hm. An interesting interpretation. But, following that line of reasoning, being mounted shouldn't grant a bonus either since an animal's back isn't "ground". Since "higher ground" is made to apply to mounted combat, doesn't it stand to reason that it should be interpreted to mean "higher elevation"?
So if you don't have enough movement left to finish falling, you fall as far as your remaining movement allows, then finish it at the start of your next turn.
That can't be entirely accurate. For instance, what speed rating would you use to calculate how far a character may move/fall in a round; Base, Fly or Swin speed? Wouldn't small characters fall less far than medium characters, while monks and barbarians (with fast movement) or those with the Run feat would fall faster in a round? Kind of throws Galileo out the window doesn't it?
 

Hm. An interesting interpretation. But, following that line of reasoning, being mounted shouldn't grant a bonus either since an animal's back isn't "ground". Since "higher ground" is made to apply to mounted combat, doesn't it stand to reason that it should be interpreted to mean "higher elevation"?
That's why I tried to talk about it in terms of attacking from a higher surface. You have to actually be on an object that's giving you a hieght advantage. If this weren't the case and flight gave you the bonus, why not simply being taller than the other person?

That can't be entirely accurate. For instance, what speed rating would you use to calculate how far a character may move/fall in a round; Base, Fly or Swin speed? Wouldn't small characters fall less far than medium characters, while monks and barbarians (with fast movement) or those with the Run feat would fall faster in a round? Kind of throws Galileo out the window doesn't it?

Physics is a houserule. :)
 


That's why I tried to talk about it in terms of attacking from a higher surface. You have to actually be on an object that's giving you a hieght advantage. If this weren't the case and flight gave you the bonus, why not simply being taller than the other person?
I would simply say that you must be at the higher elevation for the completion of the standard action that involves your attack.

So jumping up wouldn't suffice because you can't maintain that elevation separate from the jump, but being on horseback is fine. Of course, I also rule that fly would provide such a bonus as well. From my point of view, using a 3rd level spell to gain a +1 bonus on a melee attack is a little silly, but if a player wants to do it...

However, a creature enlarged so that their sword arm is 5 feet higher than their opponent does not get the "higher ground" bonus. I rule that way since I consider "higher ground" to mean "higher elevation" and the elevation of both creatures would be the same.
 


If you jump to strike from above it's more like a kind of levitation for me because your feet are not on something solid.
From the SRD:
A levitating creature that attacks with a melee or ranged weapon finds itself increasingly unstable; the first attack has a -1 penalty on attack rolls, the second -2, and so on, to a maximum penalty of -5. A full round spent stabilizing allows the creature to begin again at -1.

You fall the 5' at the start of your next turn because you're not allowed another move in the same round unless you have a feat or another special ability (Spring attack....).

If you jump a distance to great for your allowed move you finish your jump on the following round.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top