Jump while withdrawing?

[evilbob]

This is just another 'movement' debate, to which there's no end. You need to decide if movement is the key word in the Jump skill or Move Action is.

I'm going to go ahead and second this statement; it seems to neatly summarize the crux of this discussion.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Sorry, but I think that's just a ridiculous argument, unworthy of any further discussion.

Maybe you should read what I wrote in my last post instead.

Oh, I did. Your argument there wasn't any less ridiculous.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, I did. Your argument there wasn't any less ridiculous.

Vegepygmy (and everyone else) please try to make your arguments constructive. Straight-out naysaying does not add any information or insight, and tends to grate one people nerves. Nobody here has so much authority that they can say a thing like that and make it so.

 

[IceFractal]

Ok, first of all - I've seen several posts, since the FAQ was posted, claiming that you can't make a jumping charge. What's up with that? You clearly can.

Secondly - what possible motivation is there for disallowing these types of manuevers? To make the game less fun? To prevent any dangerously cinematic or exciting situations from occuring? It seems similar to disallowing someone from buying a 5' pole, "because the PHB only lists 10' poles".

Now maybe I'm mistaken and this is just rules argument for the fun of it, in which case I'll leave you to it. However, this seems like an example of an attitude I've seen, that the best way to prevent brokenness is to weld yourself to the rules and disallow anything not explicitly listed in the PHB . Well let me just say - that's not going to fix anything. You want a balanced game? Then get familiar with how much impact things actually have and rule based on that rather than on strict wording.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ok, first of all - I've seen several posts, since the FAQ was posted, claiming that you can't make a jumping charge. What's up with that? You clearly can.

Not if the FAQ is wrong

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

However, this seems like an example of an attitude I've seen, that the best way to prevent brokenness is to weld yourself to the rules and disallow anything not explicitly listed in the PHB .

Not at all. The attitude to prevent brokenness is to understand all the rules and how they interact with each other. As the first opponent to allow jumping while withdrawing, you'll also note that I said it wouldn't break your game. It does, however, lead to some strange inconsistencies which I also don't like to have in my game. If you like it, though, go for it.

Well let me just say - that's not going to fix anything. You want a balanced game? Then get familiar with how much impact things actually have and rule based on that rather than on strict wording.

I absolutely agree. And, that's what we do when we discuss rules like this. Those who merely read the FAQ and say okay without thinking about it do not do that.

 

[mvincent]

Not if the FAQ is wrong

Assuming that the matter (without the FAQ) is subject to interpretation (which it appears to be), then the FAQ can't really be 'wrong'*. And since resolving matters that are subject to interpretation seems to be one of the FAQ's purposes, it seems reasonably to view the matter as 'officially' resolved.

Or are you indicating that the matter possibly isn't subject to interpretation?


* Well, it could give incorrect justification or somesuch, but you know what I mean

 

[mvincent]

It does, however, lead to some strange inconsistencies which I also don't like to have in my game.

Could you list those inconsistencies (or provide a link to previous debates that explained them)?

I like having as much information as possible. It's possible that this is only a matter of how different people perceive the rules i.e. what one person thinks is intuitive and consistent another may not, even if both have extensive knowledge of the rules.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I already mentioned one. Why can you withdraw and jump and not withdraw and close a door behind you?

A majority of them, though, will correspond to the fact that allowing withdrawing + jump creates a loose interpretation of movement. That means for example that you cannot 5ft-step off a ledge. Sure, you can make all your rules make sense in the end, but in general it will be an inconsistency. Is falling movement? Then you can jump during it. Either you allow Jump during "movement" or you allow it during "Move action". The first is inconsistent without a few special cases (i.e. no jumping while swimming without a swim speed, etc.).

The whole point on this is not whether or not jumping while withdrawing is unreasonable or broken (it is neither), but how then it might make your rules involving movement inconsistent. Caveat: I'm not sure I'm making sense here, so if it seems ludicrous I probably just didn't explain it well.

 

[KarinsDad]

Assuming that the matter (without the FAQ) is subject to interpretation (which it appears to be), then the FAQ can't really be 'wrong'*. And since resolving matters that are subject to interpretation seems to be one of the FAQ's purposes, it seems reasonably to view the matter as 'officially' resolved.

The problem with the FAQ and all other WotC material is that it is written by some authors who although knowledgeable, are like the rest of us not 100% knowledgeable.

So, you get conflicting answers from conflicting WotC sources.

For example, the FAQ states that one can jump while charging. The Leap Attack feat states that one cannot normally do this. Which is correct?

People reading the "a Jump check is part of a move action" in the Jump skill would be inclined to agree with the Leap Attack feat. People who believe the FAQ is the same as Errata would be inclined to agree with the FAQ.

But, discrepencies are discrepencies and open to both interpretation and debate.