Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StGabriel" data-source="post: 420731" data-attributes="member: 8225">I think the jump skill really needs work.BTW, I'm a former collegiate long jumper and triple jumper.That said, there are two problems I find with jump.  First of all, the minimum jump is way too short (for your average somewhat athletic person).  Secondly, it has WAY too much variance (a problem with a lot of skills actually, but more empirically obvious here than anywhere).  Oh, I'm talking about the distances attainable when making a running broad jump.So, let's assume a person (human) is quite athletic, with an 18 strength, but no actually training in jumping.  They will jump only 5 feet with 30% of their jumps, yet some of the time, they will jump as far 17 feet.  I argue that they should be able to jump much farther at a minimum, and their jumps should tend to vary in length by only a few feet.An average adult who can run at a decent clip would have a stride of 6-7 feet (i.e. 6-7 feet between running steps).  I have seen 12 year olds jump over 12 feet.  These are normal, somewhat athletic, but not particularly talented kids.  Meanwhile, 17 feet is a decent jump for a high school kid that isn't particularly skilled, and a high school age student that was rather good would jump 21 feet+.  Division I college jumpers would need to jump over 25 feet to be competitive.  World class jumpers would close in on 30 feet.So, it should be obvious from that, that somewhat athletic folk should, at a minimum, always be able to jump 10 feet.  That is only a 3 foot stretch added to the average man's stride, and is something that an only slightly athletic adolescent could manage just fine.  Also there is a lot less variance.  A novice high school jumper might jump 17 feet, a very good one 22 feet.  If the novice jumped 17 as his best effort, his lessor efforts would all be within a couple of feet, i.e. he would never jump only 12 feet unless he REALLY screwed up (something that would likely happen less than 1 in 100 times, a critical fumble at best).  It really should be a lot easier to consistently jump around 15 feet.  As the rules stand, that has a DC of 20.  Even a rather skilled and athletic jumper (say 18str and 6 jump skill) would fail to jump even that far half the time and would jump 7 feet or less (shorter than or equal to their running step) on 1 in 10 jumps.To be completely honest, strength plays way too little of a role in the distance a person can jump (according to 3e rules that is).  Very good technique will at best add only a couple of feet to the distance one can jump, most of the distance is due to momentum from the run-up and ability to propel oneself upward without losing speed, both of which are mostly strength-dependent.  Skill more than anything simply allows one to get inches here and there on the landing, and to consistently take off from the right spot while still running quickly.  This came up because a character of mine was recently put into the position of having to cross a 10 foot river.  My first reaction was: that's not much, we can just jump that.  Upon looking at the player's handbook though, I saw that I'd only make the jump around 50% of the time (with a +4 bonus to jump I'd need an 11).  I thought this was rather ridiculous.Anyhow, take what wisdom you will out of that, and let me know what you think.---StGabriel, the Taoist saint.</blockquote>

Verification