Second-Guessing Myself: Allow Teleporting While Falling?

[mudlock]

Ah, the "which ridiculous corner-case situation is MORE ridiculous" phase of the argument. Hello; I'd been expecting you!

Hey man, if you wanna re-write the rules for jumping, movement, and charging, to fix the "bottomless pit at PRECISELY half the distance between my and my target" "problem", rock on. I suggest something along the lines of a "walk" action giving you "movement points" equal to your speed, and changing all other actions that provide movement as part of the action as also providing "movement points", and letting all those points collect in one big pile a-la the current "double move" rules kinda do.

Be sure to clarify how multiple movement types (walking, flying, jumping (what is jumping, limited flight?), teleporting) interact: can they all be pooled together? Can they be split up (can I use Fey Step and teleport 2, walk a bit, teleport 3 more) or must each type be contiguous? I'm sure you'll enjoy the process. For added challenge, try not to make Fey Charge a useless feat while you're at it (or do you intend to give it to all Eladrin (or anyone with an encounter teleport) for free?).

Have you ever, as a DM, tried designing terrain for an encounter that you hoped would encourage some dramatic, adventuresome leaping about? Let me tell you, it's a pain in the butt. Characters are so fast, jumping is so swingy (that d20, man; it's fickle!) that most of the time it all ends up being meaningless. Your 5-foot-wide hole would either have to stretch all the way across a corridor or be at least 55 feet long on open ground; otherwise, the PC just walks around it. (See last weeks whining about 1-2-1 diagonals.)

And then there's the annoying "quantum leap" effect where a chasm X squares across isn't any challenge for your party, but a chasm X+1 squares across is too much of a challenge (yeah, it's a 5 point difference; a 5-point difference is TEN LEVELS of difference for some characters.) Skill challenge DCs might be annoying, but at least you can use numbers that aren't a multiple of 5. (I mean, you COULD: oh, sorry guys; THIS one-square gap is DC 8; THAT one-square gap is DC 3. Meh.)

Or you can wave your hands and chant "Simplicity; corner case; non-simulationist. Ohhhmmmm."

 

[Riastlin]

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the DM going with the RAW. After all, there are plenty of cases in which you can argue that the rules don't make sense. I was just saying that in many respects this seems like the perfect opportunity not to follow the RAW. That being said, I do realize that I was perhaps a bit harsh in my argument and for that I apologize.

 

[IanB]

(Note that 3e is noticably better, BTW.)

Note, or not? It changes the meaning completely (rare for a (possible) typo.)

 

[delericho]

Note, or not? It changes the meaning completely (rare for a (possible) typo.)

Oops. Yes, that was a typo.

 

[delericho]

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.

Okay, consider this example.

Let's take Bob. He's a 2nd level Fighter with a 20 Str, trained in Athletics, and with Skill Focus (Athletics) - a rare case, to be sure, but not impossible. He has a +14 Athletics modifier. His movement rate is 6. (8 on a Run)

Now, we place him in the following situation:

BXXXXXXXCCXXXXXT

where B is Bob, T is his target, X represent normal squares of flooring, and C is a chasm.

Bob wants to run towards his target, jump the chasm, and then charge.

Is this an unreasonable thing to do? No. If the chasm wasn't there, he could do it easily. If the chasm were moved three squares in either direction, he could do it.

It's not the distance that disallows it. That's fine.

It's not the jump that disallows it. That's trivial. In fact, Bob's player doesn't even have to roll - the DC is 15, so he succeeds even on a '1'.

The only reason it doesn't work is that Bob's Run action must end in mid-air, and he, strictly-speaking, cannot then avoid falling unless he's declared a "double move"/Run.

But the thing is that the grid, 'squares', discrete 'actions', and even the characters turn as a whole are pure game artifacts. In a role-playing game, what happens on the grid is supposed to represent an actual character doing in an actual situation taking actual actions - it's not supposed to just be a playing piece on a board.

So, yeah, it's idiotic.

Hey man, if you wanna re-write the rules for jumping, movement, and charging, to fix the "bottomless pit at PRECISELY half the distance between my and my target" "problem", rock on. I suggest something along the lines of a "walk" action giving you "movement points" equal to your speed, and changing all other actions that provide movement as part of the action as also providing "movement points", and letting all those points collect in one big pile a-la the current "double move" rules kinda do.

How about a nice, simple fix:

"If your jump ends in mid-air, you fall unless you immediately take some other action to prevent it. If your next action includes movement, you can continue your jump, provided your Athletics check result is high enough to do so."

This covers the run-then-charge case, it covers a myriad of similar cases, and it even covers such things as "I want to jump out there, and grab hold of the flying dragon so I don't fall" - which, per RAW, is flat impossible.

 

[eamon]

I truly don't understand the argument for following RAW at all in the case of move-then-charge. It's not that RAW limitations are surprising, it's that following it to the letter is simply not the way the rules were ever meant to be played - of course you get nonsensical situations - you can't cover every corner case, after all.

And in this case, the "framework" is clearly there for finishing moves that ended half-way - double moves already explicitly allow that. Why would one choose to intentionally ignore common sense and apply corner-case rule interactions when the rules clearly and explicitly weren't intended to work that way?

 

[the-golem]

I truly don't understand the argument for following RAW at all in the case of move-then-charge. It's not that RAW limitations are surprising, it's that following it to the letter is simply not the way the rules were ever meant to be played - of course you get nonsensical situations - you can't cover every corner case, after all.

And in this case, the "framework" is clearly there for finishing moves that ended half-way - double moves already explicitly allow that. Why would one choose to intentionally ignore common sense and apply corner-case rule interactions when the rules clearly and explicitly weren't intended to work that way?

This. As far as I'm concerned, charge was explicitly written so that you could double move+attack without having to actually give up a standard action.

 

[Nullzone]

Okay, consider this example.

Let's take Bob. He's a 2nd level Fighter with a 20 Str, trained in Athletics, and with Skill Focus (Athletics) - a rare case, to be sure, but not impossible. He has a +14 Athletics modifier. His movement rate is 6. (8 on a Run)

Now, we place him in the following situation:

BXXXXXXXCCXXXXXT

where B is Bob, T is his target, X represent normal squares of flooring, and C is a chasm.

Bob wants to run towards his target, jump the chasm, and then charge.

Is this an unreasonable thing to do? No. If the chasm wasn't there, he could do it easily. If the chasm were moved three squares in either direction, he could do it.

It's not the distance that disallows it. That's fine.

It's not the jump that disallows it. That's trivial. In fact, Bob's player doesn't even have to roll - the DC is 15, so he succeeds even on a '1'.

The only reason it doesn't work is that Bob's Run action must end in mid-air, and he, strictly-speaking, cannot then avoid falling unless he's declared a "double move"/Run.

But the thing is that the grid, 'squares', discrete 'actions', and even the characters turn as a whole are pure game artifacts. In a role-playing game, what happens on the grid is supposed to represent an actual character doing in an actual situation taking actual actions - it's not supposed to just be a playing piece on a board.

So, yeah, it's idiotic.



How about a nice, simple fix:

"If your jump ends in mid-air, you fall unless you immediately take some other action to prevent it. If your next action includes movement, you can continue your jump, provided your Athletics check result is high enough to do so."

This covers the run-then-charge case, it covers a myriad of similar cases, and it even covers such things as "I want to jump out there, and grab hold of the flying dragon so I don't fall" - which, per RAW, is flat impossible.

9000% this!

(I'd XP you but the gods forbid it.)

 

[Mengu]

But the thing is that the grid, 'squares', discrete 'actions', and even the characters turn as a whole are pure game artifacts. In a role-playing game, what happens on the grid is supposed to represent an actual character doing in an actual situation taking actual actions - it's not supposed to just be a playing piece on a board.

So, yeah, it's idiotic.

Then why can't we just end our turn in mid-air? It's not like at the end of my turn, my character stops moving. Time doesn't stop. He's actually still running, or jumping, or whatever it is he does. You're picking an arbitrary boundary as to when you want to follow rules and when not to, which is fine. It's what you're supposed to do as a rules arbiter. But you can hardly blame the rules for what they are, or blame someone else for following the rules with different arbitrary boundaries.

 

[delericho]

Then why can't we just end our turn in mid-air? It's not like at the end of my turn, my character stops moving. Time doesn't stop. He's actually still running, or jumping, or whatever it is he does.

Indeed. That's how it worked in 3e.

The problem is that although we know that the character isn't actually paused in freeze-frame, turns in 3e/4e are sufficiently long that it actually appears that the character 'hangs' in mid-air for several minutes while we go round the table.

Although what you describe is actually the way the rules 'should' work, this is a case where the closer simulation actually detracts from the immersion that it is trying to generate.

What you've described should work fine. But several years of actual experience have shown that it doesn't.

You're picking an arbitrary boundary as to when you want to follow rules and when not to, which is fine.

No. In this instance, I'm stating that the rules are wrong.

In one of the late-3e "Design & Development" columns, one of the designers talked about 'Proud Nails' - areas of an otherwise good system that just don't work like they should. I submit that the 4e rules for jumping are a very clear example of a Proud Nail in this system.

At present:

1) It is too hard to perform 'easy' real-world jumps, and simultaneously too easy to perform 'hard' real-world jumps

2) Per RAW, it is possible to dramatically change direction in mid-jump, even with no surface on which to gain any traction

3) There is no support for performing actions in mid-air (such as in basketball, the run-then-charge jump example, or the "I'll jump out and grab the dragon" example).

(and possibly 4: there's an arbitrary restriction that you can't end your turn in mid-air)

#1 can be fixed by adjusting the DCs (although I must confess I haven't yet come up with a good formula, and am reluctant to recommend a table-based solution). #2 can be fixed by simply adding a statement to the effect that "a long jump must be in a straight line, unless you have some support (a wall, pillar, creature, or similar) on which to redirect". #3 can be tackled, as I suggested in my last post, by simply adding a statement that you fall unless your next action does something to prevent it (and that if your next action also involves movement of any sort, you can combine the two into a single jump).

(#4 is something we're pretty much stuck with, as the 4e is model is better than the 3e one. However, I did previously address one way to improve it - by allowing an Athletics check to exceed the fixed movement rate when running.)

For the most part, 4e is a good system. But it does have some areas where it not only goes wrong, but it goes spectacularly wrong. Jumping is the single best example I have found. Now, sure, we can sweep all this under the carpet with, "it's just a game", but given that much of the nonsense can so easily be fixed, why not do just that? We may actually get an even better game as a result!

(And, yes, in case it's not obvious: IMO.)