Help me with my rules revisions - Part 1 - Jumping

[genshou]

From the 3.0 System Reference Document:

Jump (STR; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)
Check: The character jumps a minimum distance plus an additional
distance depending on the amount by which the character's Jump check
result exceeds 10. The maximum distance of any jump is a function of the
character's height.
                       Minimum                                       Maximum
Type of Jump           Distance       Additional Distance            Distance
------------           --------       -------------------            --------
Running jump*          5 ft.          +1 ft./1 point above 10        Height X 6
Standing jump          3 ft.          +1 ft./2 points above 10       Height X 2
Running                2 ft.          +1 ft./4 points above 10       Height X 1 1/2
high jump* Standing    2 ft.          +1 ft./8 points above 10       Height
high jump Jump back    1 ft.          +1 ft./8 points above 10       Height
*The character must move 20 feet before jumping. A character can't take a
running jump in heavy armor.
The distances listed are for characters with speeds of 30 feet. If the
character has a lower speed (from armor, encumbrance, or weight carried,
for instance), reduce the distance jumped proportionally. If the character
has a higher speed (because the character is a barbarian or an experienced
monk, for instance), increase the distance jumped proportionally.
Distance moved by jumping is counted against maximum movement in a
round normally.
If the character intentionally jumps down from a height, the character
might take less damage than if the character just fell. If the character
succeeds at a Jump check (DC 15), the character takes damage as if the
character had fallen 10 feet less than the character actually did.
Special: If the character has 5 or more ranks in Tumble, the character gets
a +2 synergy bonus on Jump checks.
A character who has the Run feat and who makes a running jump
increases the distance or height he clears by one-fourth, but not past the
maximum.

Yes, in 3.0, a running long jump has a +1 per point above 10. But an ordinary person taking 10 is just going to clear the standard 5 feet.

 

[Kerrick]

But the problem is we don't expect Carl Lewis to 'stumble' 5 times in 20, and screw up big another 5 times in 20.

If his bonus really is +120, he would screw up about 1 time in 20, if he rolled a 1. Since there's no real set DC, he can't "fail" - it's simply a test of how far he can jump.

If we watch long jumpers, it looks almost as if they are 'taking 20' every time they jump - a concept that is nonsense in d20 terms.

No it's not. As I said, there's no penalty for failure, because you can't fail - all you're doing is jumping as far as you can, competing against other people who are doing the same thing. However, if we accept this, we'd have to change the DCs drastically (which I would suggest anyway; see below).

I can believe that I might jump one jump 5' and another jump 8', but if we accept that blindly it implies Carl Lewis has a jump bonus of about +120. This is number that is unwieldy for d20. If we cut it down to d20 size, it implies that we multiply our jump bonus by six, then add the die roll, then divide by 6, then add our base distance to get our distance in feet. That works, but its a rather heavy formula.

Or you could use The Rule of Three, a system I came up with to handle excessively high skill checks.

This is an easy problem. We can just do for jump something like what was done for swimming.

Yeah. Jump already has an ACP; just double it.

But as far as the ridiculous distance goes, I'm happy with 15th level characters jumping over school buses and small buildings without the aid of magic. What I don't want is them jumping over a small house one roll, and then having problems hopping across a mud puddle the next.

YMMV, but I prefer something a little more realistic. We do agree, however, on the point about them not stumbling across a mud puddle (of course, if the DM is making players roll for something that stupid, he needs to be smacked with a PHB).

I think the best solution is a combination of both systems. Set a minimum distance - an unecumbered person can long jump up to his height in feet without a check. Every foot beyond this distance increases the DC by 1. A long jump requires a 20-foot running start; a shorter start increases the DC by 5 per 5 feet shorter. Thus, a 6-foot-tall human could long jump 6 feet without a check (assuming a 20-foot head start); a 15-foot pit would be DC 9. If this sounds a little low, remember that the PC is a) unencumbered and b) has a 20-foot head start. Cutting the distance by even 5 feet makes it DC 14; giving him medium encumbrance boosts the DC by 6 more, and putting armor on him boosts it even more. IOW, your unarmored and (probably) lightly encumbered monk will be able to make fantastic leaps; the lightly-armored rogue can make good leaps; and the heavily-armored fighter will fly like a lead balloon.

 

[Celebrim]

From the 3.0 System Reference Document:

*snip*

Yes, in 3.0, a running long jump has a +1 per point above 10. But an ordinary person taking 10 is just going to clear the standard 5 feet.

I am aware of the 3.0 rules.

Let's discuss them for a bit.

Various characters are having a jumping contest, just to see how far they can jump. None of the characters know the skill bonus the other characters have in jump, so none dare risk taking 10 on the skill check. After all, the idea is to see how much distance you can cover.

The first character has no jump skill bonus. He's minimum jump on a roll of a 1(1+0 < 10) is 5'. His maximum jump on a roll of 20 is 15' (5+(20+0-10)). This is a variation of 10', and so we might expect that we've dealt with the problem of too much variation.

But the second character has 4 ranks in jump, and a str of 12 (+5 bonus). His minimum jump is still 5', (1+5 < 10) but his maximum jump is 20' (5 + (20+5-10)). This is a variation of 15'. The problem of too much variation has raised its head again.

The third character has 4 ranks in jump, a str of 17, and skill focus (jump), for a total bonus of +10. His mimimum jump is 6' (1+10 > 10!) and his maximum jump is 25' (5+ 20+10-10). At this skill level, the rule about minimum jump length no longer applies to the character, so we are back to the full variation of the fortune mechanic (1-20).

Moreover, if the characters decide to resolve their contest with a single jump, there is a nontrivial chance the weakest most unatheletic jumper will win because his maximum jump is well beyond the distance of the minimum jobs of the other two jumpers. The random variation induced by using a d20 as the fortune mechanic overwhelms the variation in skill ranks. But this does not accord with everyone's playground experience of atheletic ability and atheletic contests. Generally speaking, unless the competitors are very equally matched, the more atheletic character should win every time - the first jump, the second jump, the third jump and the twentieth.

 

[slwoyach]

If the disparity in die rolls bothers you, you could just roll 3d6 instead of 1d20. Same average but heavily weighted towards the center.

 

[Celebrim]

If his bonus really is +120, he would screw up about 1 time in 20, if he rolled a 1. Since there's no real set DC, he can't "fail" - it's simply a test of how far he can jump.

If his bonus really is +120, however, his screw up - however infuriating it may be to the jumper - doesn't look like a screw up to the observer because the range of his fortune (1-20) represents only a very small fraction of his overall ability. On a screw up, he still covers 86% of his maximum distance.

Compare that with a character with a +15 bonus to jump, which in D&D represents fairly high jumping ability. In this case, when the jumper screws up, he only covers 45% of his maximum ability. This is I think very different than the first case.

No it's not. As I said, there's no penalty for failure...

If this was true, you could take 20 on the task. In context, the penalty for failure is, "You fall into the pit." I consider that a fairly considerable penalty, sufficient to deter me from risking it except when I can succeed by taking 1.

I think the best solution is a combination of both systems. Set a minimum distance - an unecumbered person can long jump up to his height in feet without a check. Every foot beyond this distance increases the DC by 1. A long jump requires a 20-foot running start; a shorter start increases the DC by 5 per 5 feet shorter. Thus, a 6-foot-tall human could long jump 6 feet without a check (assuming a 20-foot head start); a 15-foot pit would be DC 9. If this sounds a little low, remember that the PC is a) unencumbered and b) has a 20-foot head start. Cutting the distance by even 5 feet makes it DC 14; giving him medium encumbrance boosts the DC by 6 more, and putting armor on him boosts it even more. IOW, your unarmored and (probably) lightly encumbered monk will be able to make fantastic leaps; the lightly-armored rogue can make good leaps; and the heavily-armored fighter will fly like a lead balloon.

See the prior post.

None of those suggestions address any of my concerns.

Your rule of three seems totally concerned with devaluing investment in skills. I'm not concerned with that at all. 'Casual Realism' at low levels is something I want in the system (low level characters should make jumps that are reasonable for real people), but if high level characters can bounce around like costumed superheroes and do ten difficult or impossible things before breakfast that's fine with me and indeed somewhat desirable, given that their spell casting companions can fly or turn into kangroos or birds.

The problem I have with 'rule of three' is that it is a choice to make success with a skill depend almost completely on luck. Now, for some skills - like the chance to remember a particular fact - that may be fine, but for some other skills - most notably 'jump' - that degree of randomness breaks both the 'casual realism' and the 'high value of investing in skills' I find desirable.

 

[Celebrim]

If the disparity in die rolls bothers you, you could just roll 3d6 instead of 1d20. Same average but heavily weighted towards the center.

Yeah, thought of that too. Or we could use 5d4 (average changes slightly, but same maximum as d20 and even tighter clustering than 3d6). There is still a reasonably high variation, but if Carl Lewis is only 'stumbling' (by which I mean the outcome is a fairly low percentage of the maximum) one jump in 256 or one jump in 16, it's a far more believable thing than if he stumbles on one jump in 20 or one jump in 5.

Personally, if we go this route, I much prefer the 5d4 to the 3d6. Both resolutions are easy to calculate and remember. The only real problem here is that in the larger context of the system, its really unelegant to resolve everything else with a d20 but then resolve Jump as a special case.

 

[genshou]

I *prefer* using 2d10 instead of 1d20 for all task resolution rolls, to reduce the element of luck in everything. But that's neither here nor there.

I referenced the 3.0 rules to point out a significant difference, and that difference is the minimum jump distance. While the rules after this point are rather wonky, I think the numbers themselves are useful. Let's take a look at a random idea I have.

What if, instead of rolling for jump distance, the distance jumped was always 10 plus your skill bonus? Now, there will still be a roll involved, but the jumping distance would be a consistent form of regular movement.

Now, instead of rolling for distance, you roll a Jump check to see how you land. The DC of the Jump check would be equal to the total number required for reaching that distance jumped. If you succeed, you land on your feet. If you fail by 1-5 points, you end up prone in the final square of movement. If you fail by 6 or more, you end up prone in the previous square. Then, add the rules for catching the edge of a cliff, and maybe you have a system that works better? I dunno.

 

[Kerrick]

If his bonus really is +120, however, his screw up - however infuriating it may be to the jumper - doesn't look like a screw up to the observer because the range of his fortune (1-20) represents only a very small fraction of his overall ability. On a screw up, he still covers 86% of his maximum distance.

That's why I wrote the Rule of Three - because once the skill bonus exceeds the range of a d20, success increasingly becomes a foregone conclusion, rendering a roll meaningless. It was intended to maintain a degree of chance at all levels - even Carl Lewis screws up sometimes, whether because he's having a bad day, the wind's blowing in his face, or the fates decreed it. Obviously, your opinion differs from mine, and that's fine. It takes all kinds to play D&D.

If this was true, you could take 20 on the task. In context, the penalty for failure is, "You fall into the pit." I consider that a fairly considerable penalty, sufficient to deter me from risking it except when I can succeed by taking 1.

I was talking about making a standard long jump into a sand pit, not jumping across an obstacle with the possible outcome of broken limbs and/or death. In that case, no - you can't take 20.

 

[Ashtagon]

If you want less randomness, you could replace the 1d20 roll with a 3d6 roll or a 2d10 roll.

3.5e increased the average distance a character could jump by 5 feet (compared to 3e), which made jumps incredibly unrealistic. You can get more sensible jump distances by rolling back this change.

Instead of rolling and saying you jump that far, a better approach would be to declare the distance you are aiming for, roll, and you either make it, or you fall short (a really low roll would represent a stumble). You don't jump to the moon just because you rolled a natural 20 this way.

 

[Celebrim]

Let's take a look at a random idea I have.

What if, instead of rolling for jump distance, the distance jumped was always 10 plus your skill bonus? Now, there will still be a roll involved, but the jumping distance would be a consistent form of regular movement.

Now, instead of rolling for distance, you roll a Jump check to see how you land. The DC of the Jump check would be equal to the total number required for reaching that distance jumped. If you succeed, you land on your feet. If you fail by 1-5 points, you end up prone in the final square of movement. If you fail by 6 or more, you end up prone in the previous square. Then, add the rules for catching the edge of a cliff, and maybe you have a system that works better? I dunno.

That's the kind of creativity I was hoping to see. I don't know yet if I like that or not, but it is an interesting system.