Missing Rules

[Shiroiken]

I am not sure what you mean with the inclusion of "in some circumstances." It is pretty plain in the Strength entry in the PHB that one of the things you can do with Athletics is "jump an unusually long distance." That is a statement of the rules. What I am wondering is why there are no benchmarks for that action.

Because the game designers wanted the DM to have more control over these types of situations. A codified set of DCs might work very well for your game, but not for mine. A low fantasy game might only allow a few feet extra, with fairly difficult DCs (something like DC: 10/15/20 for +1/2/3 feet for a long jump), because it's a grittier type game. A high fantasy game may allow up to double your jump distance with fairly low DCs, because it's more about epic situations.

If you truly have an issue with it, then make your own chart. Figure out how much extra you want to allow, and how hard. This will keep you consistent, and solve your problem for the future.

 

[Maxperson]

Then jumping is not the solution for anyone other than the barbarian. They'll have to do something else. I see this plenty in my games. Take THAT Dex-based characters!

I don't buy adventure paths, so I don't know the situation in question. Could the party get the platforms swinging to gain not only some height, but close the distance a bit to allow the weaker PCs to make the jump?

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. Or, at least, if a character is in a position to make a running long jump already but it going to come up short, the game rules are pretty explicit in saying all they need to do is succeed at a Strength (Athletics) check. Requiring anything more detailed than "I go for it" is a thing you are putting on the PC, not the rules.

You aren't understanding [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. The game is clear on how the DM adjudicates actions. First, he determines if the outcome is certain or uncertain. If the outcome is certain, you never get a roll, but instead simply succeed or fail. It's only if the outcome is uncertain that a roll happens and a PC would get an athletics check to go further at a DC the DM sets.

For example, if the PCs can get the platforms rocking and the DM think that the platform would go 3 feet higher and 5 feet closer, allowing for an extra 8 feet of distance, he might rule that even a 10 strength PC will automatically be able to reach the next platform. Outcome not uncertain and no athletics used, even though the PC went farther than usual.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd just like to add that the athletics check to go further doesn't even have to be for the jump itself. In my above example of getting the platform rocking, that could be the athletics check right there, and then the jump just auto succeeds if they get the platform moving. Further, since I assume the platform is large, you can make it a skill challenge that gets the whole group involved with the athletics checks. Then, because I assume the platform isn't necessarily safe, you might say that if a PC fails the athletics check by 5 or more, they will have to make a Dex save or athletics check at a DC set by you or fall off of the edge and add a cost of failure to the challenge.

I don't always add failure costs, but they are often appropriate. With this particular check, if you don't add failure costs, then the PCs are just going to ask for athletics checks to every last jump distance that is out of range. Also, personally I wouldn't even allow them to just ask for an athletics roll to go further than normal. I'd require something like the above effort to justify the roll in the first place. If they can't come up with an action that would warrant a roll or auto success, then the outcome is not in doubt and they fail.

 

[cmad1977]

What DC would you apply to jumping 5 feet beyond your strength score?

Medium? So.. DC10?

 

[Reynard]

So I am going to back-pedal a little bit. Or, rather, revise my perspective in the face of new evidence.

I just sat down and reread the Running The Game chapter, particularly the "Difficulty Class" section. Most everyone in this thread that is not me is right: in 5e it is explicitly the job of the DM to set DCs based on his or her own judgement and experience. Moreover, having time to peruse the PHB section on Ability scores confirms that *no* skills provide a set of benchmark DCs.

It's funny because it has been a while (6 months) since I ran 5e, and even longer since I really read the books (I run on FG usually). Moreover, I just spent a few weeks (since it was released, anyway) reading and evaluating the Pathfinder 2E Playtest -- which sort of brought the idea of having tons of benchmark DCs back to the forefront of my mind. Before this break in running 5E I had been doing so pretty much since it came out. I guess I just kind of "forgot" that the 5E style was much closer to what we used to do in BECMI (which is a positive).

There you have it: an opinion on the internet changed. Thank you all for the good discussion.

 

[jgsugden]

What is the difficulty you would assign a 15' standing long jump? How did you arrive at that DC?

Standing long jump is generally 1/2 your strength score. So, a 20 strength PC could normally do a 10 foot jump without rolling anything. If the PC wanted to jump 50%(!) farther than that, it would be a pretty amazing feat. If they want to clear the entire 15 feet with their feet, I'd likely call that a near impossible check - meaning a DC 30 athletics check would be required. Near impossible tasks are DC30 per the PHB. If, however, they were jumping a 15 foot pit and could catch the ledge with their arms, I'd say that was a medium task with a 15 DC.

Note that a 15 foot standing long jump is about 3 feet beyond the world record... Meaning 3 feet further than what I would see as the equivalent of a 20 strength real person with athletics expertise... good thing this is a fantasy world.

 

[BookBarbarian]

There you have it: an opinion on the internet changed. Thank you all for the good discussion.

Good for you for recognizing it.

So many times the good forum goers have shown me the errors of my ways. My games are far better for it.

 

[Reynard]

So here's a general question for all the "you don't need benchmarks" folks in this thread: for those thing for which the rules do provide set DCs -- I am looking at things like the tool proficiency stuff in Xanathar's -- how do you square that? Is there a reason it is okay for that stuff to have defined DCs as opposed to DM gut checks?

 

[iserith]

So here's a general question for all the "you don't need benchmarks" folks in this thread: for those thing for which the rules do provide set DCs -- I am looking at things like the tool proficiency stuff in Xanathar's -- how do you square that? Is there a reason it is okay for that stuff to have defined DCs as opposed to DM gut checks?

I would say that you have to think of published DCs as tied to a particular approach to a goal that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. So when I see something like "When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone." Then the implied goal and approach is, broadly, "try to keep from falling on tricky footing by attempting to move nimbly." The difficult terrain makes the result uncertain and the meaningful consequence of failure is that you land prone.

If the player suggests some other approach to the goal than what is implied by the published DCs, then the DM must adjudicate normally.