Second-Guessing Myself: Allow Teleporting While Falling?

[Saagael]

Just for the sake of offering clarified rules for those reading, here are some of the relevant entires in the compendium:

Double Move
Same Move Action: To double move, you have to take the same move action twice in a row on the same turn.

One Speed: When you double move, add the speeds of the two move actions together and then move.

Long Jump (from Athletics entry)
Uses Movement: Count the number of squares you jump as part of your move. If you run out of movement, you fall. You can end your first move in midair if you double move.

Also, I could not find it in the compendium, but I remember seeing somewhere that falling happens immediately. There is no "start falling but catch yourself" phase. When you fall, you fall all the way to the ground without a chance for an action during the fall.

Now, taking from the rules above, you can't move + charge to make it over a chasm (if the first move would end you over the chasm) as those are not the same movement action. In my head, this works out because charging usually means you're moving faster than you normally would (hence why you can move+charge, or double move with no attack). You can't really get this burst of speed mid-air with nothing beneath your feet.

I'd rule against the teleporting mid-air since, not only is it a different action, but it's a completely different movement type.

EDIT: You can take free and no actions while falling. Thanks Mudlock

 

[mudlock]

When you fall, you fall all the way to the ground without a chance for an action during the fall.

Almost. You could take a free action.

Feather Fall is a free action, right?

 

[Erudite Frog]

this thread is hurting my head, lol

 

[Saagael]

Almost. You could take a free action.

Feather Fall is a free action, right?

Oh dur, completely forgot about that while typing my post. Yeah, you would be able to take free and no actions.

 

[delericho]

Yes jumping is part of a move action. Say you are speed 5, your enemy is 10 squares away. There is a chasm that starts at 3 squares and ends at 7 squares. You want to charge the enemy. By RAW, you can't. First you have to take a move action, then you have to charge. The move action of 5 squares (part of which is a jump) puts you in mid-air, and you fall.

Well, I'll be...

I checked the PHB when I got home, and then the Rules Compendium, and sure enough, you're dead right. If you end your move action in mid-air, you fall immediately, and the only way to jump the increased difference is to use a "double move" as you describe.

So, I was wrong; you were right.

Per the RAW, then, the character in the OP falls (no save).

Note: I also stick by my earlier assessment of the RAW in this instance - it's an idiotic set of rules. Turns out the jumping rules in 4e are even more FUBAR than I thought. (Not that 3e is noticably better, BTW.)

 

[Riastlin]

Note: I also stick by my earlier assessment of the RAW in this instance - it's an idiotic set of rules. Turns out the jumping rules in 4e are even more FUBAR than I thought.

Yeah I guess per RAW it doesn't work, but I agree with your assessment that this seems rather FUBAR. The PC is not even attempting to gain an extra possible distance (per se) than could be achieved simply by walking (assuming no pit), just trying to do something cool. I think this is a perfect opportunity for Rule 0 to be applied (more so even than in the OP).

I think the problem with rules is that it is so hard to encapsulate every possible scenario and its often a lot easier to make the written rule text overly simplified and then tell the GM to use your judgment and embrace the concept of saying "Yes" to your players. To me, the rule is there to prevent the gnome who's wearing scale and would thus have a speed of 4 (IIRC off the top of my head) but an Athletics modifier of +34 because he's epic level and has invested everything he can into athletics from being able to make 10 square jumps, thereby granting himself extra speed. The idea is that you shouldn't be able to go further in a round simply because you jumped.

Anyhoo, the RAW will back up a DM that says you can't do it. I also think its perfectly acceptable to allow the player to try it, particularly if he declares his intention before the jump. Now, if it suddenly starts to get abused, I also think the DM is within his or her right to go back and start invoking the RAW. In the cases cited here though, for the most part its probably not going to come up all that often.

 

[Aegeri]

I think the OP was perfectly and reasonable, in fairness doing exactly what I would have done in the same situation. If the PC said I want to jump over the pit and use my teleport standard action attack, I would go "Okay sure". If the PC wanted to just jump over the pit, failed and then decided to do something else as a get out of jail card, I would go "Okay, make a saving throw and if you succeed you can use the attack". Otherwise enjoy falling into the pit when you misjudged your jump.

It's the initial intent of the action that matters to me - not the RAW about movement.

 

[KarinsDad]

Note: I also stick by my earlier assessment of the RAW in this instance - it's an idiotic set of rules. Turns out the jumping rules in 4e are even more FUBAR than I thought. (Note that 3e is noticably better, BTW.)

I don't think the rules are idiotic.

You are speed 5, your enemy is 10 squares away. There is a chasm that starts at 3 squares and ends at 7 squares. You want to charge the enemy. By RAW, you can't.

Too bad.

It's a fricking 20 foot wide chasm in the middle of what is your maximum charge distance anyway.

You use a double move, you make your Athletics check, and you are over. You don't get to attack this round because all of your focus was in getting over a chasm and not falling in it. After you get across, you still have a little bit of movement left over, but you don't have a full Standard Action left over to charge with.

Next round, you can attack.

I think this is a good set of rules. No, the PC isn't entitled to charge like he can when there is no obstable in the way. First, he gets over the obstacle and since it is such a large obstacle that requires a double move, his actions are now finished.

Nothing stops him from double moving and then using an Action Point to charge, but saying that he should leap 20 feet and charge at the same maximum charge distance as normal is giving the PC a lot of extra gain in ability over what he can normally do with the same two actions. IMO.

 

[Riastlin]

I don't think the rules are idiotic.

You are speed 5, your enemy is 10 squares away. There is a chasm that starts at 3 squares and ends at 7 squares. You want to charge the enemy. By RAW, you can't.

Too bad.

It's a fricking 20 foot wide chasm in the middle of what is your maximum charge distance anyway.

You use a double move, you make your Athletics check, and you are over. You don't get to attack this round because all of your focus was in getting over a chasm and not falling in it. After you get across, you still have a little bit of movement left over, but you don't have a full Standard Action left over to charge with.

Next round, you can attack.

I think this is a good set of rules. No, the PC isn't entitled to charge like he can when there is no obstable in the way. First, he gets over the obstacle and since it is such a large obstacle that requires a double move, his actions are now finished.

Nothing stops him from double moving and then using an Action Point to charge, but saying that he should leap 20 feet and charge at the same maximum charge distance as normal is giving the PC a lot of extra gain in ability over what he can normally do with the same two actions. IMO.

The problem the rules is this. Lets take that same character and put him the same distance from the target. Now, lets reduce the chasm to just 1 square across but put 5 squares between the target and the PC. Pretty much nobody would have trouble hopping that chasm unless they were so out of shape that they couldn't cut it as an adventurer anyway. Yet, per RAW its still impossible to just more or less glide or hop over that distance and still attack. To me this is absolutely a ridiculous situation (yes, per RAW not possible, but for a hero it really should be no sweat imho).

 

[Mengu]

The problem the rules is this. Lets take that same character and put him the same distance from the target. Now, lets reduce the chasm to just 1 square across but put 5 squares between the target and the PC. Pretty much nobody would have trouble hopping that chasm unless they were so out of shape that they couldn't cut it as an adventurer anyway. Yet, per RAW its still impossible to just more or less glide or hop over that distance and still attack. To me this is absolutely a ridiculous situation (yes, per RAW not possible, but for a hero it really should be no sweat imho).

The system provides other solutions too. You pop a utility power like Mighty Sprint to get over the gap. Then you proceed with your charge. Or you double move and spend an action point. Or you run as your first move action, and take a -5 penalty to your attack. What you're trying to do is not impossible. It's easy even. And the rules are provided. Sure you may choose to ignore them because they are not simulationist, or doesn't fit your vision of what an adventurer should be able to do. A non simulationist system like D&D is pretty much "ridiculous" in many aspects, it's simply meant to be a conflict resolution system. We use the rule frame to dictate a portion of the game. For some of us that portion is larger, for some it's smaller. I'm sure it's hard to find someone who hasn't ignored or ruled against RAW in the heat of running a combat encounter. We all do it, which KarinsDad actually implied should be done to an extent in an earlier post, and the 3 degrees of ruling.

And yeah, I'm agreeing with KarinsDad, this thread will be the end of the internet.