• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Missing Rules

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
It doesn't have to have meaning by itself. It just has to have meaning. That's the ONLY requirement with regard to meaning.
My dude, the thing I said that you've been arguing with this whole time was "failing to achieve your goal does not have meaning per se (which means by itself)." If you didn't disagree with that, why have you been arguing against it?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
So, its you deciding for my character that every other time i am always going full out? Wasn't part of this not assuming for the players what and how they were doing things?
I'm giving your character the benefit of the doubt that they do their best when it matters. Would you prefer to jump fewer than your Strength in feet across this gap?

You do know that "not holding back" or "going all out" every move is pretty much one of the first thing coaches try to teach out of athletes in many sports except those that involve a mostly complete lack of precision or control? Everything is not a sprint. Sometimes control matters.

Especially in almost anything around combat.
Now you're just being pedantic. I assume competence on the part of the characters. That includes knowing when to conserve energy and when to spend it. That's part of doing the best you can.
 
Last edited:

5ekyu

Adventurer
If the distance is so short that you don't need to roll, I don't think it can possibly qualify as dangerous: you literally can't fail.

If the distance is great enough that failure is a possibility, I absolutely agree that they'll use maximum effort.
Absolutely... you use greatest effort when needed and enough to get it done under the conditions when not. The jump distance under movement if free action as part of movement no fail unless terrain at landing jump distance - or in other words - safe, controlled and precise. Even with my *limited* athletics experience, i know that means there is more power than that which gives you perfect control, safety and precision. just watch tennis and the difference in speeds between first serve and second serve (where the risk of out of bounds is nil for the first and tons for the second) at most levels but really at even the tops and see how much an assumption of "always all out full strength" makes sense for athletics.

but hey, makes sense for some i suppose.

Foer me, i tell my players the jump from chap 8 is the safe, no risk (barring situational) and the ability checks is the farther and at risk and they already know that with risks comes the possibility of failure and setbacks. Then they decide which way to go. They dont need me deciding that for them.
 

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
I didn't say characters try to jump as far as possible whenever they jump. I said characters put in their best effort at all times. Your best effort to jump 5 feet looks pretty different than your best effort to jump 50.
This makes zero sense to me. How is "best effort" when it comes to jumping distance not correlated with how far you try to jump?

Coach: "Ok, I want you to put in your best effort on this jump!"

Athlete: (Jumps five feet despite being capable of farther distances)

Coach: "That wasn't your best effort!"

Athlete: "Sure it was!"

Because of maximum effort. Again, the rule says that your strength determines how far you can go, and then proceeds to tell you how far you can go in the jump rules.

If they don't use maximum effort, they aren't going to go strength distance. It's only auto succeed because of the maximum effort.
In my mind, if something requires maximum effort, it can't possibly be an auto-success. Consider: because the character is capable of attempting higher-difficulty tasks (with a chance of failure) the character must, by definition, be capable of putting in more effort than required to auto-succeed at lower-difficulty tasks.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
I'm giving your character the benefit of the doubt that they do their best when it matters. Would you prefer that I assume your character half-asses it unless you say otherwise?
I prefer that you do not assume anything about my character's choices between effort and precision, safety and risk. i think that should be my choice as the decider for that character as to what they want to try and do.

If i want an all-out jump with risk of failure and chance of longer distance *by the rules* then i expect you to allow me to choose that. if you decide thats not possible unless i invent flittering pogo sticks or some other "buzz words" i have to use, i hope you tell me that too.

But since i know at least enough to know that "amount you can safely do accurately without fail on the run" is *not at all* the same as "the most you can do all out with risk" when it comes to most of these athletics moves *and8 when the rulebook puts the rule there in play that reflects that... unless you have house ruled it overtly - i do not expect you to choose for me its not there as an option.

be upfront about your house rules or even the silly DC40 stealth house rules.

Maybe too much to ask for some.

Now you're just being pedantic. I assume competence on the part of the characters. That includes knowing when to conserve energy and when to spend it. That's part of doing the best you can.
So is knowing when risk and such is necessary and when its not based on the circumstances before you.

most of the time, the safe jump on the fly with no risk and no inaccuracy is the best bet - in my experience that is.
most of the time,working mage hand rope across or some other guarantee approach is the best bet.,
but sometimes you may just have to take the leap and take the risk unless your GM sees no difference between "full on all out jump for distance with chance of failure or setback" and "safe, on the fly, never inaccurate always land on my feet on the run with no probs unless we hit terrain." quick jumps.

But hey, your players tolerance is the deciding factor at any table.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
This makes zero sense to me. How is "best effort" when it comes to jumping distance not correlated with how far you try to jump?

Coach: "Ok, I want you to put in your best effort on this jump!"

Athlete: (Jumps five feet despite being capable of farther distances)

Coach: "That wasn't your best effort!"

Athlete: "Sure it was!"
Have the coach let them know that there's a hidden pit trap and see if a single one doesn't try as hard as he freaking can. It's a False Equivalence to equate that example to D&D jumps that have consequences.

In my mind, if something requires maximum effort, it can't possibly be an auto-success. Consider: because the character is capable of attempting higher-difficulty tasks (with a chance of failure) the character must, by definition, be capable of putting in more effort than required to auto-succeed at lower-difficulty tasks.
It can in a game where it's needed for other reasons. The reality is, you aren't ever going to be able to jump the exact same distance every single time, but the game simplifies it for reasons. I gave what I think are those reasons.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I prefer that you do not assume anything about my character's choices between effort and precision, safety and risk.i think that should be my choice as the decider for that character as to what they want to try and do.

If i want an all-out jump with risk of failure and chance of longer distance *by the rules* then i expect you to allow me to choose that.
Great. Then tell me how far you’re trying to jump, and I’ll tell you if that’s possible by the rules.

if you decide thats not possible unless i invent flittering pogo sticks or some other "buzz words" i have to use, i hope you tell me that too.
It has nothing to do with buzz words. By the rules, your strength determines how far you can jump. By the rules, one possible result of a successful Strength (Athletics) check is jumping an unusually long distance. By the rules, the player describes what their character does, the DM determines the results, possibly asking for an ability check, and narrates the results. So tell me how far you want to get and how, and I’ll determine the results, asking for an ability check if I determine one is necessary, and narrate the results.

But since i know at least enough to know that "amount you can safely do accurately without fail on the run" is *not at all* the same as "the most you can do all out with risk" when it comes to most of these athletics moves
*and8 when the rulebook puts the rule there in play that reflects that... unless you have house ruled it overtly - i do not expect you to choose for me its not there as an option.
It is not, by the rules, the player’s role to decide if an ability check is necessary to determine the results of an action, so don’t act like it is and then try to tell me I’m using house rules.

be upfront about your house rules or even the silly DC40 stealth house rules.
I have no idea what DC40 stealth house rule you’re talking about. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

So is knowing when risk and such is necessary and when its not based on the circumstances before you.
Mhmm, and I take that into account too, and I assume your character is competent enough to know when to take those risks, and to succeed when it matters.
 
Last edited:

5ekyu

Adventurer
Great. Then tell me how far you’re trying to jump, and I’ll tell you if that’s possible by the rules.


It has nothing to do with buzz words. By the rules, your strength determines how far you can jump. By the rules, one possible result of a successful Strength (Athletics) check is jumping an unusually long distance. By the rules, the player describes what their character does, the DM determines the results, possibly asking for an ability check, and narrates the results. So tell me how far you want to get and how, and I’ll determine the results, asking for an ability check if I determine one is necessary, and narrate the results.


It is not, by the rules, the player’s role to decide if an ability check is necessary to determine the results of an action, so don’t act like it is and then try to tell me I’m using house rules.


I have no idea what DC40 stealth house rule you’re talking about. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?


Mhmm, and I take that into account too, and I assume your character is competent enough to know when to take those risks, and to succeed when it matters.


You know, these passive aggressive jabs make you very unpleasant to talk to.
I reference player choice at table for how much they will accept being important to games, you call me specifically unpleasant to talk to.

Got it.
 

KenNYC

Explorer
Can't you just as DM make a ruling? If I was DMing two characters of equal stats and one said "ok, I am dropping all my gear and taking a big leap, the fact he thought enough to take his gear off should count for something. If it is 10 feet and we are talking characters with STR and DEX of say 16ish or better, I would just say "you get across just barely, but what about your gear you left behind?"

If it was some player and the character had platemail and 10,000 GP and he wants to take a huge leap, well, no natural 20 in the world is going to make me as DM think that that A) makes sense, or B) could possibly work. If the players at the table make sense then I see no reason to punish the characters by subjecting them to needless rolls of dice that can frustrate the best plans with natural 1s. Conversely, I don't care if you roll perpetual 20s, if you play in a way that makes no sense I am not rewarding your character for dumb luck.
 

Reynard

Adventurer
If nothing else, this discussion has made me realize how terrible the jump rules are. I propose the following.

Jumping requires an Athletics check. The DC of the jump is based on the distance jumped. For a standing long jump the zdC equals 5 plus twice the distance jumped. For a running long jump the DC equals 5 plus the distance jumped. For a standing high jump the DC equals 5 per foot jumped and for a running high jump it is 5 per 2 feet jumped. The maximum distances are limited by the characters strength score, per the movement rules. Note that unusual conditions can grant advantage (using a sprinboard) or disadvantage (slippery ground) to this roll. Magic and other effects can increase the maximum distance as usual.
 

clearstream

Explorer
If nothing else, this discussion has made me realize how terrible the jump rules are. I propose the following.

Jumping requires an Athletics check. The DC of the jump is based on the distance jumped. For a standing long jump the zdC equals 5 plus twice the distance jumped. For a running long jump the DC equals 5 plus the distance jumped. For a standing high jump the DC equals 5 per foot jumped and for a running high jump it is 5 per 2 feet jumped. The maximum distances are limited by the characters strength score, per the movement rules. Note that unusual conditions can grant advantage (using a sprinboard) or disadvantage (slippery ground) to this roll. Magic and other effects can increase the maximum distance as usual.
I do something similar, but inverted.

For Long Jump, I say that with a run up the result of your check is the distance you jump, albeit you cannot jump fewer than your Strength in feet.

So if you have Strength 12 and no special skill or ability, you can't long jump fewer than 12 feet (which is RAW) and might be able to jump up to 21 feet.

This isn't 100% realistic or consistent, but it's not my goal to have a jumping simulation at my table: I just want to quickly know how far a character jumps when they want to jump further than Strength.
 

Reynard

Adventurer
I do something similar, but inverted.

For Long Jump, I say that with a run up the result of your check is the distance you jump, albeit you cannot jump fewer than your Strength in feet.

So if you have Strength 12 and no special skill or ability, you can't long jump fewer than 12 feet (which is RAW) and might be able to jump up to 21 feet.

This isn't 100% realistic or consistent, but it's not my goal to have a jumping simulation at my table: I just want to quickly know how far a character jumps when they want to jump further than Strength.
I don't mind Strength score representing the maximum distance. Like you said, it isn't meant to be a simulation. it does mean that as a GM I need to take care with gaps and chasms greater than 10 or 15 feet unless I am looking to stymie the characters or have them use up resources.
 

clearstream

Explorer
I don't mind Strength score representing the maximum distance. Like you said, it isn't meant to be a simulation. it does mean that as a GM I need to take care with gaps and chasms greater than 10 or 15 feet unless I am looking to stymie the characters or have them use up resources.
Exactly! That was also a goal - to be able to sometimes have distances that are risky for players to try to jump (unaided). As a side benefit, the ruling makes it quick for me and my players to estimate their chances of making a given distance. There are plenty of corner cases, and note that where something multiplies distance jumped (e.g. Step of the Wind), I also have it multiply the minimum distance.
 
I didn't say characters try to jump as far as possible whenever they jump. I said characters put in their best effort at all times. Your best effort to jump 5 feet looks pretty different than your best effort to jump 50.
Well, on your approach there is no such thing as the best effor to jump 50' (without magical enhancement) given that STR caps at 25!

I give the PC the benefit of the doubt and assume that they perform at the best of their ability when it matters. I like players to succeed and fail by their choices, not by factors outside their control like whether or not they focused on their breathing properly, or got distracted, or thought about their hips and thighs enough.
I find it a bit ironic that, in this case, empowering the PCs by assuming that they always perform at their best has the result ofn them being limited in how far they can jump, in comparison to the alternative rules intepretation being suggested, which allows that it is uncertain whether or not they can jump to their best and hence would use an ability check to determine whether a jump might cover an unusually long distance.

Also - you've got a quote about 30 posts upthread attributed to me that I'm pretty sure is not from me. I haven't posted anything about costs (of doing nothing, or of not doing nothing).
 
By the rules, your strength determines how far you can jump.
And the jump rules dictate how many feet you can go. Saying "I jump over the chasm!" doesn't tell me that the PC is doing anything other than a normal jump.
At the risk of repetition - my preferred reading is that the rules tell you how many feet you can certainly jump (ie a distance in feet equal to STR). But page 64 - especially read in light of p 59 - seems to me to leave it open that jumping further is possible, but not certain. That is to say, it leaves it uncertain.

We're back to approach it seems. There is no ability check without a goal and an approach that the DM has determined to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. If you want to jump an unusually long distance, you have to say how.
Which I have - like everyone in the real world who ever jumped an unusually long distance, I do it by trying hard. (In the real world people have jumped unusually long distances without using pogo sticks, ramps, valuts, parkour or magical enhancements.)

At least, according to the rules in which the Jump and Strength (Athletics) rules are nested. There's really no way around it short of running the game like D&D 4e where players just say what skills they want to use and the DM fills in the blanks.
Nonsense. A player who says "I jump" or "I jump as hard as I can" has described an approach to the goal of getting over the cavern, and has not said what skill s/he wants to use.

It then falls to the GM to adjudicate this.

Clearly jumping is an approach that can achieve the goal of getting across a chasm. The only issue between us is that you regard it as certain that, everything else being equal, trying to jump further than what the rules on p 64 permit will fail. Whereas I take the view that the presence of the rule on p 59 implies that unusually long jumps are possible but not certain, and hence provide occasions for the use of the ability check mechanic.

By the rules, one possible result of a successful Strength (Athletics) check is jumping an unusually long distance. By the rules, the player describes what their character does, the DM determines the results, possibly asking for an ability check, and narrates the results. So tell me how far you want to get and how, and I’ll determine the results, asking for an ability check if I determine one is necessary, and narrate the results.
And no one with whom you are arguing disagrees with this.

The only point of disagreement is that you take it as certain that, everything else being equal, a character cannot jump further than the distance provided for on p 64. Whereas others disagree. Given that disagreement - ie the view that it is not certain that a character can clear a greater distance with a leap, nor certain that s/he cannot - those others (including me) take the view that the matter is uncertain, and hence something which is to be resolved by way of an ability check (in accordance with the rules on pp 6 and 58, which say that if the outcome of a decared action is uncertain than it is resolved by way of a check).

It is not, by the rules, the player’s role to decide if an ability check is necessary to determine the results of an action, so don’t act like it is and then try to tell me I’m using house rules.
No one is saying that it is the player's role to do this. But they are saying that it is the GM's duty, under the rules, to call for a check if an outcome is uncertain. And they are saying that the outcome of an attempt by a 15 STR character to jump over an 18' chasm is uncertain. It is not certain to succeed because 18 is greater than 15. But it is not certain to fail, because it is eminently possible for a person's best leap to be 3' longer than a leap they can make with no risk of failure.

This disagreement over what is or is not uncertain may be intractable; but it shouldn't be intractable to observe that this is the focus of disagreement. There is no disagreement about the methodology of action declaration or resolution.

If nothing else, this discussion has made me realize how terrible the jump rules are.
I don't agree with this! The jump rules seem fine to me.

What it tells me is that the game offers no general methodology for determining what is or is not uncertain. Nor is there any general principle about whether or not statement of what actions are permitted (eg like that on p 64) are to be exclusive of other possibilities, or not.

I assume that this relaxed approach to drafting (it contrasts markedly with many other RPGs I'm familiar with) is a deliberate aspect of the "big tent" goal of 5e.
 
Actually, to me the two different approaches here are "jump the safe, consistent distance i can do quickly" [game terms - no fail, no action used, resolve automatically as part of movement by default" and "jump farther more recklessly knowing i can risk a lot of potential bad results aka setbacks" [Athletcis check, possible setbacks and other bad results.}
I can see that. For my tastes, that's drilling down more than is needed - like we don't normally distinguish between different sorts of moves in melee combat - but that's just taste.

Either way, the resolution comes out the same. My approach puts the p 64 rules more on the GM side, whereas your approach treats them as something (or as a model of something, like knowledge of their capacity for performing) that the characters engage with in their atheltic pursuits.

The potentially different goals can be "jump a specific distance to a specific spot" (targeted jump at/to something) or just jump as far as i can in this direction" or quite a few others. likely others as well.
Agreed, but again I think this sort of granularity isn't needed most of the time. I guess it becomes relevant for [MENTION=467]Reynard[/MENTION]'s scenario, though, where the PC has to not only jump from A but land on a reasonably small and wobbly B. One approach would be to up the DC for the STR (Athletics) check, and if it fails by no more than 5 allow a DEX (Acrobatics) check to hold on anyway.
 

clearstream

Explorer
Well, on your approach there is no such thing as the best effor to jump 50' (without magical enhancement) given that STR caps at 25!

I find it a bit ironic that, in this case, empowering the PCs by assuming that they always perform at their best has the result of them being limited in how far they can jump, in comparison to the alternative rules interpretation being suggested, which allows that it is uncertain whether or not they can jump to their best and hence would use an ability check to determine whether a jump might cover an unusually long distance.
In this regard, I also love some of the mechanical nuances involved.

For example, a Dragonborn Warlock with Otherworldly Leap and Strength 14 can reliably long jump 42'. A Half-Orc Fighter/Monk with Strength 18 can spend 1 Ki to reliably long jump 44'. I think a "dragoon" is feasible, who reliably long jumps perhaps 150'.

Adding some distance with a chance of failing seems fine, so long as (for me at least) it doesn't devalue such abilities. Which it absolutely needn't.

This makes me happy :D
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I reference player choice at table for how much they will accept being important to games, you call me specifically unpleasant to talk to.

Got it.
Apparently you haven't "got it," because he's referencing the "silly DC40 stealth rules" and "buzzwords," etc. comments you made, not your preference for player choice.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If nothing else, this discussion has made me realize how terrible the jump rules are. I propose the following.

Jumping requires an Athletics check. The DC of the jump is based on the distance jumped. For a standing long jump the zdC equals 5 plus twice the distance jumped. For a running long jump the DC equals 5 plus the distance jumped. For a standing high jump the DC equals 5 per foot jumped and for a running high jump it is 5 per 2 feet jumped. The maximum distances are limited by the characters strength score, per the movement rules. Note that unusual conditions can grant advantage (using a sprinboard) or disadvantage (slippery ground) to this roll. Magic and other effects can increase the maximum distance as usual.
This I think, is another one of the reasons that they didn't do this. Those rules would make it a DC 10 to jump 5 feet with a running jump. A 20 strength PC could fail that, while a 3 strength could make it. It should never be possible for a 3 strength PC to jump farther than a 20 strength PC unless you have critical failure rules and the 20 strength PC tripped and fell. Better to just allow PCs using maximum effort to jump strength distance like the rules indicate.
 

Advertisement

Top