D&D (2024) Jumping

[Bill Zebub]

One thing I'd love to see addressed/tweaked is jumping rules. It drives me crazy that the distance you can jump is a fixed number, and you always make it that distance, and you never make it one foot more. Could we get some slightly richer rules?

Two features I'd like to see:
1) A formula for setting DCs, based on distance jumped.
2) An option for sometimes landing prone. Could be as simple as a 2nd ability test with the same DC. Could also be something like "If you fail by 3 or less, you can choose to succeed by land prone."

Or....you can use your bonus action to roll with Advantage (or just roll with Advantage out of combat) but you have to succeed with both dice to land on your feet.

 

[GMMichael]

But, how do you feel about moving in 5 foot squares?

 

[Maxperson]

The rules already provide for jumping farther than your strength score. That's what the Athletics skill is for.

 

[Lanefan]

One thing I'd love to see addressed/tweaked is jumping rules. It drives me crazy that the distance you can jump is a fixed number, and you always make it that distance, and you never make it one foot more. Could we get some slightly richer rules?

Two features I'd like to see:
1) A formula for setting DCs, based on distance jumped.
2) An option for sometimes landing prone. Could be as simple as a 2nd ability test with the same DC. Could also be something like "If you fail by 3 or less, you can choose to succeed by land prone."

Or....you can use your bonus action to roll with Advantage (or just roll with Advantage out of combat) but you have to succeed with both dice to land on your feet.

The formula you're asking for would be a beast, as there's so many variables:

--- run-up area or lack thereof
--- strength-size-mass of the jumping creature, and all the interrelationships thereof
--- physiology of the jumping creature (e.g. 4-footed creatures are generally better jumpers than are 2-footed)

I can see the desire for such a formula but can also see why they didn't do one.

As for landing prone, there's also the idea of partial success where, say, you're left hanging from the chasm edge and have to pull yourself up. This is the sort of thing where I like the one roll to inform me not just as to outright success or failure, but the relative degree of such. Succeed by just one or two and you're safe on the other side but you land prone, or awkwardly, or maybe even take a point or two damage. Fail by just one or two and you're hanging from the edge.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The formula you're asking for would be a beast, as there's so many variables:

--- run-up area or lack thereof
--- strength-size-mass of the jumping creature, and all the interrelationships thereof
--- physiology of the jumping creature (e.g. 4-footed creatures are generally better jumpers than are 2-footed)

I can see the desire for such a formula but can also see why they didn't do one.

As for landing prone, there's also the idea of partial success where, say, you're left hanging from the chasm edge and have to pull yourself up. This is the sort of thing where I like the one roll to inform me not just as to outright success or failure, but the relative degree of such. Succeed by just one or two and you're safe on the other side but you land prone, or awkwardly, or maybe even take a point or two damage. Fail by just one or two and you're hanging from the edge.

You forgot wind speed and direction, gravity of the planet on which you are jumping, and how securely your backpack is attached.

Orrrrrr....just ignore all that. Except maybe run-up, but that can be simplified. It might be one number if you don't get a running start, and another number if you get at least 10'.

But, yeah, it's going to be more complicated than what they currently have. I don't really care about the realism of it, I just find that it leads to missed opportunities for risk-taking, because players know exactly how far they can jump.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But, how do you feel about moving in 5 foot squares?

Honestly I'd rather use squares instead of feet.

 

[Lanefan]

You forgot wind speed and direction, gravity of the planet on which you are jumping, and how securely your backpack is attached.

Though you are I think jesting here, you're on to something with the backpack: another variable would be how encumbered the jumper is at the time.

Orrrrrr....just ignore all that. Except maybe run-up, but that can be simplified. It might be one number if you don't get a running start, and another number if you get at least 10'.

If it's just one number then the formula is far too simplistic.

But, yeah, it's going to be more complicated than what they currently have. I don't really care about the realism of it,

I do; in that if something like this is to be done, let's get it right.

Problem is, this is a case where getting it right quickly becomes a complicated mess; so they went the other route and just made it a hard number.

I just find that it leads to missed opportunities for risk-taking, because players know exactly how far they can jump.

All that means is that you-as-DM need to introduce some real uncertainty via rulings. Make it that the listed distance is the farthest they can jump under perfect, ideal conditions (which almost never exist) and that their actual distance achieved is going to vary from jump to jump but will very likely never exceed that limit.

So if a PC's limit is 18' and a 15' jump awaits, said PC should in theory still be uncertain whether the jump is do-able.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly I'd rather use squares instead of feet.

Just the opposite here, as I'd like characters to be able to move in straight-line directions other than the cardinal eight. Other than for mapping purposes I wouldn't mind too much if squares went away almost completely.

 

[Leatherhead]

The main problem with jumping is that bonuses to jumping are largely useless, as you can't jump farther than your walking speed anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

The main problem with jumping is that bonuses to jumping are largely useless, as you can't jump farther than your walking speed anyway.

20 strength gets you 20 feet. Speeds are typically 30. That leaves 10 more feet to go via Athletics ability checks.