Second-Guessing Myself: Allow Teleporting While Falling?

[Dedekind]

I probably would have let him do it just for the cinematics... but, when players can do cool things, so can monsters.

 

[delericho]

per raw, you could NOT use the teleport if it was an immediate (interrupt) action. You can´t take interrupt actions on your turn.

Rules are pretty clear. If you don't end your movement on a solid surface, you fall. Regardless of what his standard action is going to be, he took a move action, and ended it in midair, therefore falling.

To both of these objections, I would rule that this is a case where the spirit of the law is at odds with the letter of the law. Thus, I would make an exception. YMMV, of course.

However, in the latter case (of the standard action Inescapable Shadow), I do believe it's important that the player declare his intent to use this power before he fails in his jump.

 

[eamon]

So, RAW it wouldn't work - but I'm also on the camp that it should probably work. The rule that immediate and opportunity actions don't work on your turn strikes me as illogical in most cases - probably just there to prevent some abuses. If he has the time and reflexes to teleport just before a fall, he's got em regardless of the turn.

However, trying to bend the rules after rolling the jump check is pushing it, even if I agree with the idea. He should have announced his intent to save with a teleport in the case he doesn't make the jump before jumping. And it's not like 1d10 is such a terrible punishment...

 

[keterys]

For those who think it should work - what if instead it were someone trying to "Pounce" using Pouncing Armor:
Power (At-Will): Standard Action. You make a charge attack, but instead of moving normally, you make an Athletics check to jump as though you had a running start and jump that distance. The distance you jump can exceed your speed.

Ie, they jump out, can't get far enough... so they just jump again.

Or Deft Strike - he was only 1 square short. It lets you move 2 squares, after all.

I'm guessing a lot of people are going to think those are bad, so then the question becomes... what's so different about what he tried to do? He has the Wiley Coyote moment of pausing in midair, realizing things are bad, and uses that moment to teleport?

I actually like the compromise "make a save" option a lot.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You misunderstood me... it was no objection to "it should work"

It was: "why in hell should it be an interrupt to work", especially when RAW explicitely disallows it. Using a standard action to teleport on your turn, when your move stops midair is ok... especially, when a double move jump is allowed explicitely!

 

[Nullzone]

The functional difference is teleport.

You disappear in one square and appear instantly in another. There is no need for conceptualizing a running start, no need for solid ground.

I'm not really sure why you'd compare it to a suit of armor that deals with charging, myself.

 

[erleni]

RAW I think the assassin should have been falling. He took a move action, then he was falling (and RAW took damage) and then he would have been able to use a standard action. If he could teleport as a free action then things would have been different as you can typically take free actions even within other actions. So he could have teleported while moving.

As a DM I totally support those who says that he should have been allowed to teleport before falling because it's damned cool, and somebody who plays an assassin (the most beaten class together with the seeker) deserves some help.

 

[Mengu]

If it's awesome to teleport from mid-air to a solid location without an item or power that specifically does that (such as Feyleaf Sandals), then sure, go for it. But this sort of house rule would make taking appropriate items, or a PP like Sword of Assault to combine a charge with a teleporting encounter attack, and other legitimate ways of pulling off the maneuver much less awesome (not to mention it might leave a player feeling jaded).

It seems awesome and sensible to Tide of Iron an enemy on a charge, do I allow it? Not without Swordmaster PP or another tool. Why? Because it's fair. As DM, every time I'm making a decision to allow awesome to happen or not, I feel I must weigh the fairness, and make sure I don't ruin someone else's fun. If the Goliath Ranger spent a feat on avalanche reaver to push enemies on a charge, the dwarf fighter without expending any resources charging enemies with Tide of Iron would be unfair.

As a player, trying to be awesome is not a license to break rules.

I think in an effort to be a yes DM, the OP's decision to allow a save to let this happen was a fine (and generous) decision. As a rules conscious player, I would never have asked. If I'm jumping, I'm jumping, if I'm teleporting, I'm teleporting, trying to jump and save an encounter power, then fail and try to use the encounter power seems like trying to pull a fast one on the DM. I don't approve of the player's choice to pursue the issue.

To both of these objections, I would rule that this is a case where the spirit of the law is at odds with the letter of the law. Thus, I would make an exception. YMMV, of course.

Mileage definitely varies. I think the spirit of the rule is that you don't end an action in mid-air unless you're flying. This does not seem at odds with the letter of the rule, as a matter of fact, it fully agrees.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's a good point: it IS awesome. Never let the rules get in the way of unadulterated awesomeness.

I tend to disagree.

The PC probably could have teleported across in the first place, and used the rest of the attack of the power.

But the player decided to try the jump, possibly to save that power for later.

As part of the move action, he got thrown back. The DM gave him a save to do the "Oh shoot, I'm SOL, plan B" and he failed the roll.

I think the DM ran this very well. He basically had three options here:

1) Totally rule in favor of the player. The concept that player entitlement overrules the actual rules.

2) Take the middle ground. Have the player roll a save. If he makes the roll, he succeeds. If he fails the roll, he fails. This is the choice the DM made and I think it is a good one.

3) Take the other extreme. Follow the rules strictly as written "when the move action is over, then the player can use his standard action". The DM was totally within his rights to do it this way as this is RAW. The player should have been totally ok with this ruling as well because it is RAW.

But, this player got upset because he didn't get his way. He didn't get #1.

Some players are just whiny, but some players are taught to be whiny. If the DM does #1 a lot, then a player will be taught that the DM should always give in to the player's little whims and desires.

Personally, I think a good DM mixes up #1 through #3 above. He sometimes awards players for creativity when they try something really spectacular (personally, I thought this idea wasn't anything that special, so I wouldn't do #1 in this particular case, I'd save it for something REALLY awesome by the player), he sometimes have them roll to see if their idea works (the middle ground which should often be considered by a DM for an unusual attempt), but he mostly follows RAW (the consistent path for the vast majority of situations). But doing #1 every time is not the answer. It just leads to players walking all over their DMs and feeling entitled.

 

[delericho]

Mileage definitely varies. I think the spirit of the rule is that you don't end an action in mid-air unless you're flying. This does not seem at odds with the letter of the rule, as a matter of fact, it fully agrees.

Eh, it seems entirely reasonable to me that a character could jump partway across a gap, and then use a power to teleport the rest of the way.