Ok. So what is it that the character does differently to allow them to jump further than they can do with certainty?
"Not holding back for increased accuracy, certainty and safety."
Ok. So what is it that the character does differently to allow them to jump further than they can do with certainty?
How do you know? If there is only one 18' chasm in a 20 level campaign, then jumping that distance is not usual at all. And if a player fails every check made to see if his/her PC can clear a distance larger than that which p 64 permits the PC to jump with certainty, then so far from being usual such jumps turn out never to have occurred!It makes the leaps with extra distance usual, not unusual as the rules say.
As I've said several times upthread, this is not in issue in the current discussion.I also prefer that the players to describe their actions to me like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]. I'm trying to get one of my players over the bad habit(personal opinion) of just asking to roll certain skills.
But if the failure wasn't the source of the meaning, then the failure, (wait for it...) by itself didn't have meaning. That doesn't mean the failure can't have meaning. It just means the failure needs something else (read: a cost or consequence) to give it meaning.It doesn't have to be the source of it. Failure just has to have meaning, even if the source of the meaning is attributed to the failure from elsewhere.
It is identical to the cost of doing nothing, yes, but it is still a cost of the failure. The fact that you didn't get to the top of the cliff doesn't have meaning by itself. The fact that you might get hit by spear attacks if you don't gives it meaning.And I demonstrated that the cost was identical to the cost of doing nothing.
I don't accept that those are different goals. That's reading the mechanics back into the ficiton in what I regard as a highly artificial way. And in fact I don't accept that these are goals.
The goal is to get from A to B (in this thread's example, to get across the chasm). The approach is to jump. (As opposed to vaulting, or climbing down and back up, or springboarding across, or flying, or whatever other approach might be attempted within the magical and heroic world of D&D.)
The notions of distance that can be jumped with certainty and distance that is unusually long for a jump, and hence not able to be cleared with certainty pertain neither to goal nor approach. They are features of the situation which inform the GM's method of adjudication. (Analogous to whether a person is sleeping, and hence liable to have his/her throat slit with no check required; or what a creature's AC is.)
Of course there is, or can be.
A skill check can fail - leading to falling down on landing if the Gm so rules or *any other setback* the Gm sees as appropriate including going too far.
A skill check can (often does) take an action not occur as a default part of movement.
A simple read of the sentence under ability checks which tells you what happens if you do not make a skill check can give you some ideas as to why someone would not take the jump check every time.
You are very correct... just like how the rule on casting curelight wounds says it takes an action... but the spell on sorcery metamagic says it might be castable with a bonus action by using quicken spell on cure light wounds.
Similarly, the athletics skill defined in the mysterious "Ability Checks" says you can jump unusually long distances. just like the jump spell increasing your jump distance.
The same section about jumping by strength defines your movement using jump as a part of your move... no fail, no check, nothing else at play there... but there are a lot of rules in the game that alter that baseline - one of them is the athletics skill examples.
Almost exclusively (above even a moderate point tho that point grows obviously as the physique and training improve) more power costs precision, more power produces more exhaustion and more power produces greater risk. Anyone proficient with athletics (speaking character) knows this.as they have seen it in play. the key to athletics and exertion is to spend the energy one needs to the task and no more - and jumping is one case where that is actually reflected in the rules with a defined "safe, no fail (except for terrain induced) and as part of movement action economy defined limits" and also a athletics skill check to jump "unusually long" - unusually not referring to the frequency of them making the jump obviously, but the length.
The player I'm imagining says "I jump over the chasm!" That's not asking to roll a skill. That's describing an action, an approach to the goal of getting to the other side of the chasm.
"I already assume you are not holding back. Tell me what you're doing, not what you aren't doing.""Not holding back for increased accuracy, certainty and safety."
It makes the leaps with extra distance usual, not unusual as the rules say. Do I think it's unrealistic to go variable distances with effort? No. Does it break the game? No. That isn't the rules, though, and this is a rules discussion. I also prefer that the players to describe their actions to me like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]. I'm trying to get one of my players over the bad habit(personal opinion) of just asking to roll certain skills. All my asking of "How?" is starting to sink in, and he's catching himself more and more often.
But if the failure wasn't the source of the meaning, then the failure, (wait for it...) by itself didn't have meaning. That doesn't mean the failure can't have meaning. It just means the failure needs something else (read: a cost or consequence) to give it meaning.
It is identical to the cost of doing nothing, yes, but it is still a cost of the failure.
The fact that you didn't get to the top of the cliff doesn't have meaning by itself. The fact that you might get hit by spear attacks if you don't gives it meaning.
"I already assume you are not holding back. Tell me what you're doing, not what you aren't doing."