Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4719457" data-attributes="member: 4722">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.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).Or you could use <a href="http://project-phoenix.wikidot.com/skills:rule-of-three" target="_blank">The Rule of Three</a>, a system I came up with to handle excessively high skill checks.Yeah. Jump already has an ACP; just double it.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.</blockquote>

Verification