|
Again, onlyYes, forgive me for thinking that "distance traveled" meant "distance traveled".
Using Acrobatics to jump is currently the only form of movement where that is not the case.
via your interpretationsupported by FAQ.Fixed that for you.Changing other people's words is fun!
And like I just said, the FAQ supports what most everyone else already thought the interpretation was.
Wait, is someone saying the DC is based not on distance, but on something else?
So if I wanna traverse a 12 foot wide pit, I gotta ask what the DC is?
12.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I wonder if we can double the number of posts in this thread by asking about a 20-foot gap...
|
Wait, is someone saying the DC is based not on distance, but on something else?
So if I wanna traverse a 12 foot wide pit, I gotta ask what the DC is?
If you know the distance of the obstacle you're jumping over, you're good.
But that's not the same as "distance traveled", which is what many ppl thought the DC was.
No, I'm serious. If the FAQ 'settled' the matter by stating the DC is equal to the obstacle, are we not using the distance=obstacle?
To me that seems 12ft=DC 12, I mean, if 10ft has been established as DC 10, that seems to be a logical way of doing it, right?
Not trying to keep this going, just want to make sure I'm 100% right cause I told my friends about this ridiculous thread and they want updates about the argument about a hole in the ground. :D
|
|
No, I'm serious. If the FAQ 'settled' the matter by stating the DC is equal to the obstacle, are we not using the distance=obstacle?
To me that seems 12ft=DC 12, I mean, if 10ft has been established as DC 10, that seems to be a logical way of doing it, right?
Not trying to keep this going, just want to make sure I'm 100% right cause I told my friends about this ridiculous thread and they want updates about the argument about a hole in the ground. :D
DC = Obstacle
|
|
No, I'm serious. If the FAQ 'settled' the matter by stating the DC is equal to the obstacle, are we not using the distance=obstacle?
To me that seems 12ft=DC 12, I mean, if 10ft has been established as DC 10, that seems to be a logical way of doing it, right?
Not trying to keep this going, just want to make sure I'm 100% right cause I told my friends about this ridiculous thread and they want updates about the argument about a hole in the ground. :D
Nefreet's original argument was that the distance to cross a 10' pit is more than 10', because you're moving a distance further than 10'. If you move only 10, then you land in the pit. So the distance dc is greater than 10 (so 11 or 15 as pointed out in the first post).
The FAQ clarified that distance is only the distance across the gap itself and not any further distance because you have to move further to get across the gap.
It wasn't a wrong interpretation, it was just there were differing interpretations. So the distance it's referring to is the distance from edge to edge of the gap.
No, I'm serious. If the FAQ 'settled' the matter by stating the DC is equal to the obstacle, are we not using the distance=obstacle?
To me that seems 12ft=DC 12, I mean, if 10ft has been established as DC 10, that seems to be a logical way of doing it, right?
Not trying to keep this going, just want to make sure I'm 100% right cause I told my friends about this ridiculous thread and they want updates about the argument about a hole in the ground. :D
Nefreet's original argument was that the distance to cross a 10' pit is more than 10', because you're moving a distance further than 10'. If you move only 10, then you land in the pit. So the distance dc is greater than 10 (so 11 or 15 as pointed out in the first post).
The FAQ clarified that distance is only the distance across the gap itself and not any further distance because you have to move further to get across the gap.
It wasn't a wrong interpretation, it was just there were differing interpretations. So the distance it's referring to is the distance from edge to edge of the gap.
Right, so if you wanna clear a 12 foot pit, you can assume DC 12.
Initially, I was one of the people arguing for DC 11+ on a ten foot pit. No more.
Every jump will succeed with people launching just at the edge, and landing just at the edge, as long as they make the DC. Personally, for comfort, I would aim one or two points higher, but now understand it isn't REQUIRED. The same way you can fight at full effectiveness after having taken 100 points of damage, as long as you have one point left, you are good.
It's funny how complicated something so simple can get.
Still discussing the distance travelled vs. distance cleared thing?
It's obvious that you can use one foot to touch a space 1' behind you or 1' in front of you without moving, right? You can easily do both at once and even do that without moving your torso more than an inch or so. You haven't moved, you're just standing in a different pose.
A character doing that in the game never leaves his square. Now imagine taking off on the foot you put behind you and landing on the foot in front of you. If your jump moves you 10' and your feet are 2' apart, your "landing foot" lands 12' further than your "jumping foot" was at the start of your jump but you only move 10'.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume we're not even jumping. You're attached to a crane with a length of rope. The crane operator lifts you, moves his vehicle 10', waits until you stop swinging and puts you down. You've moved 10', but the distance between where the foot behind you was before the movement and the foot in front of you after the landing is 12'.
It's completely trivial that people can easily clear 10' of distance by jumping 10'. It works in the game as well, because you can freely operate within your 5' square, allowing you to do the back foot - front foot thing within that square. And, people don't instantly fall into a pit the moment part of their body hangs over it.
And that's my last contribution to this thread. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue I initially had with all this DC 10, 15, 11 thing was that this is a game of numbers.
Missing AC by 1 means you don't get to roll damage. Failing a skill check means you don't achieve your goal.
I initially thought that to clear a ten foot pit, you would need to jump a distance greater than the pit, using the example of the square shown oh so many times... You don't want to land in the space that the pit occupies, after all.
My mind is at peace now that I can just use the distance you want to jump as the DC.
No calculations, no +1, no rounding...
Wanna clear a 12.5 foot hole, just roll 12.5 on your check.
No, wait... 13.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's my last contribution to this thread. :P
I agree it's been exhausting, but I wanted to clarify something again (because, judging by your last post, it still doesn't seem that you're understanding our initial arguments).
Your pictures are great. Thanks. I've seen quite a few of them throughout this thread, but they aren't relevant to the position that was being taken.
Our arguments weren't "DC+1", or "DC+5" (aka "Pit Width +X"), and it didn't matter where on the grid anything was placed. It seems like, even after over 1000+ posts, that people don't understand that.
I and others were arguing from a point of simplicity. If you moved your figurine 3 squares, and those 3 squares represented 15ft, then the Acrobatics DC to jump to that square would be DC 15.
That's it.
You were arguing that the DC equaled the obstacle to be crossed. I totally get that. We weren't arguing that the DC was "Obstacle +X". We were arguing that the DC equaled the distance traveled.
That's it.
Both of us had super simple calculations that couldn't be broken down any further, and both of our positions were supported by the text. There was an equal chance of the FAQ going either way, and the only final difference was that "DC = Obstacle" won out over "DC = Distance".
I just wanted to clarify that one more time, as it seems a lot of people not only missed that distinction, but feel that this was "a silly argument about the width of a 10ft pit", when it really wasn't anything of the sort.
You were arguing that the DC equaled the obstacle to be crossed. I totally get that. We weren't arguing that the DC was "Obstacle +X". We were arguing that the DC equaled the distance traveled.
That's it.
That doesn't clarify the competing philosophies as much as you think. To me it always meant 'DC = distance travelled during the jump' where 'jump' meant 'the part of the move during which you were over the thing you were trying to jump over'. So that left me trying to understand how your interpretation differed.
This is why sometimes it's useless for the Devs to do a "common sense" FAQ, since some people simply will NOT give up, even after the FAQ.
It's over dude. You had a good run. Time to thank the nice devs and give up.
And that's my last contribution to this thread. :PI agree it's been exhausting, but I wanted to clarify something again (because, judging by your last post, it still doesn't seem that you're understanding our initial arguments).
Your pictures are great. Thanks. I've seen quite a few of them throughout this thread, but they aren't relevant to the position that was being taken.
Our arguments weren't "DC+1", or "DC+5" (aka "Pit Width +X"), and it didn't matter where on the grid anything was placed. It seems like, even after over 1000+ posts, that people don't understand that.
I and others were arguing from a point of simplicity. If you moved your figurine 3 squares, and those 3 squares represented 15ft, then the Acrobatics DC to jump to that square would be DC 15.
That's it.
You were arguing that the DC equaled the obstacle to be crossed. I totally get that. We weren't arguing that the DC was "Obstacle +X". We were arguing that the DC equaled the distance traveled.
That's it.
Both of us had super simple calculations that couldn't be broken down any further, and both of our positions were supported by the text. There was an equal chance of the FAQ going either way, and the only final difference was that "DC = Obstacle" won out over "DC = Distance".
I just wanted to clarify that one more time, as it seems a lot of people not only missed that distinction, but feel that this was "a silly argument about the width of a 10ft pit", when it really wasn't anything of the sort.
Your (earlier) calculations also included size modifiers which cannot be found any where in the book, nor did they match up with existing size modifiers to other game statistics.
Also, they didn't make sense except within the context of ONLY measuring the world in 5ft squares, which is patently silly, since we know from the core book that there are things that exist that are not measured in 5ft squares (such as most creatures, seeing as all player character races are given heights measured down to the inch).
|
|
Your (earlier) calculations also included size modifiers which cannot be found any where in the book, nor did they match up with existing size modifiers to other game statistics.
Also, they didn't make sense except within the context of ONLY measuring the world in 5ft squares, which is patently silly, since we know from the core book that there are things that exist that are not measured in 5ft squares (such as most creatures, seeing as all player character races are given heights measured down to the inch).
First off, those "size modifiers" are listed within the rules. It's the space that the creature takes up. It changed nothing from the stance of "distance traveled".
After we figured out it didn't work, I evolved my stance to fall in line with the 1ft paradigm, which eliminated any differences based on the size of the creature jumping. With two supporting quotes by SKR, I felt comfortable changing my stance.
some people simply will NOT give up, even after the FAQ.
It's over dude. You had a good run. Time to thank the nice devs and give up.
And then there's these responses.
. I believe I stated hundreds of posts back that I accepted the answer that was given. There's nothing to "give up".
Part of the reason this thread continued was because I asked a series of follow up questions to make sure I understood the ruling (questions that hadn't been asked yet), and expected a certain answer.
Those new questions fostered new debates and examples (and even new threads). This isn't a continuation of the original debate, but an evolution resulting from the new FAQ and its implications.
Obviously this thread got much attention. I've had people messaging me privately asking me all sorts of questions. Some have been jerks, and some have been legitimate. But that goes to show this wasn't firmly set in everyone's mind until the FAQ was issued.
If there's anything to "give up", I believe it would be thinking that the answer was obvious from the start.
Well, yes. You make a point. From a RAI point, it was obvious. But the whole movement by square, not by feet and other things made the RAW somewhat confusing and you very excellently pointed out the contradictions inherent due to those two systems colliding.
So, yes, I knew, and I think almost everyone knew what the FAQ answer would be- but that doesnt mean that the RAW wasnt unclear and that a FAQ was a bad idea. So yeah, they answered your FAQ question, and their response was the RAI "common sense" answer most of us were expecting. I have asked a coplue of "common sense" FAQ's myself.
This is not to say you were wrong in asking it. It apparently needed clarification. The clarification was printed.
It's over. The full-scale dramatic soprano has done her thing.
First off, those "size modifiers" are listed within the rules. It's the space that the creature takes up.Your (earlier) calculations also included size modifiers which cannot be found any where in the book, nor did they match up with existing size modifiers to other game statistics.
Also, they didn't make sense except within the context of ONLY measuring the world in 5ft squares, which is patently silly, since we know from the core book that there are things that exist that are not measured in 5ft squares (such as most creatures, seeing as all player character races are given heights measured down to the inch).
What page are those modifiers to acrobatics checks listed on?
This is the part where you sound silly. You make statements like it's written in stone, with a finality that you could list page numbers if you chose, but just choose not to. Except we both know you can't list a page number.
So please, stop saying it's IN the rules, unless you can provide a link, page number or rules quotation that supports you. I'm looking through the core book PDF right now, and I can tell you for a fact the word "size" appears in the Acrobatics entry... drumroll...
0 times.
|
|
Your (earlier) calculations also included size modifiers which cannot be found any where in the book, nor did they match up with existing size modifiers to other game statistics.First off, those "size modifiers" are listed within the rules. It's the space that the creature takes up.What page are those modifiers to acrobatics checks listed on?
This is the part where you sound silly. You make statements like it's written in stone, with a finality that you could list page numbers if you chose, but just choose not to. Except we both know you can't list a page number.
So please, stop saying it's IN the rules, unless you can provide a link, page number or rules quotation that supports you. I'm looking through the core book PDF right now, and I can tell you for a fact the word "size" appears in the Acrobatics entry... drumroll...
0 times.
Probably because you're looking in the wrong book. They're in the Bestiary.
I wouldn't think I'd need to link to how much space a creature takes up. Medium creatures take up a 5ft square. Large creatures take up a 10ft square.
Your response tells me you didn't understand the argument that was being presented at the time, that the Acrobatics DC was equal to the distance being traveled.
It's a moot point now (doubly so), but at the time it was relevant.
And, obviously, I eventually eschewed that argument anyways, and before the FAQ was issued. I'm only going over it with you now to provide context.
|
|
Probably because you're looking in the wrong book. They're in the Bestiary.
Er...did you mean to link to the Combat section of the Core Rulebook?
And that's my last contribution to this thread. :PI agree it's been exhausting, but I wanted to clarify something again (because, judging by your last post, it still doesn't seem that you're understanding our initial arguments).
Your pictures are great. Thanks. I've seen quite a few of them throughout this thread, but they aren't relevant to the position that was being taken.
Our arguments weren't "DC+1", or "DC+5" (aka "Pit Width +X"), and it didn't matter where on the grid anything was placed. It seems like, even after over 1000+ posts, that people don't understand that.
I and others were arguing from a point of simplicity. If you moved your figurine 3 squares, and those 3 squares represented 15ft, then the Acrobatics DC to jump to that square would be DC 15.
That's it.
You were arguing that the DC equaled the obstacle to be crossed. I totally get that. We weren't arguing that the DC was "Obstacle +X". We were arguing that the DC equaled the distance traveled.
That's it.
Both of us had super simple calculations that couldn't be broken down any further, and both of our positions were supported by the text. There was an equal chance of the FAQ going either way, and the only final difference was that "DC = Obstacle" won out over "DC = Distance".
I just wanted to clarify that one more time, as it seems a lot of people not only missed that distinction, but feel that this was "a silly argument about the width of a 10ft pit", when it really wasn't anything of the sort.
which would be nice if most of us weren't arguing that it's distance traveled AS PART OF THE JUMP.
|
|
Er...did you mean to link to the Combat section of the Core Rulebook?Probably because you're looking in the wrong book. They're in the Bestiary.
Oh, well that works, too.
Thought I was linking to the Bestiary. CRB is even better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your (earlier) calculations also included size modifiers which cannot be found any where in the book, nor did they match up with existing size modifiers to other game statistics.First off, those "size modifiers" are listed within the rules. It's the space that the creature takes up.What page are those modifiers to acrobatics checks listed on?
This is the part where you sound silly. You make statements like it's written in stone, with a finality that you could list page numbers if you chose, but just choose not to. Except we both know you can't list a page number.
So please, stop saying it's IN the rules, unless you can provide a link, page number or rules quotation that supports you. I'm looking through the core book PDF right now, and I can tell you for a fact the word "size" appears in the Acrobatics entry... drumroll...
0 times.
Probably because you're looking in the wrong book. They're in the Bestiary.
I wouldn't think I'd need to link to how much space a creature takes up. Medium creatures take up a 5ft square. Large creatures take up a 10ft square.
Your response tells me you didn't understand the argument that was being presented at the time, that the Acrobatics DC was equal to the distance being traveled.
It's a moot point now (doubly so), but at the time it was relevant.
And, obviously, I eventually eschewed that argument anyways, and before the FAQ was issued. I'm only going over it with you now to provide context.
I see the problem.
You think I didn't understand your argument. I did.
I'm pointing out how horribly wrong it was and that it relied on assumptions of relationship that do not exist, nor have they ever existed.
Please, go on defending those relationships though and talking down to me while doing so. It definitely makes you seem smarter than me.
My base move is 30'. The spell gives me a sprint of 150'. [Double move = 10*base.] This is 120' of enhancement. At +4/10', that is +48. I have a take 1 of 30, and as a 10th level ninja, the DCs are halved. So on a take 1, with the swift spell, I jump 156'. If I roll a 20, I go 194'. As the spell gives a full-round move of 300, I have not exceeded that limit. Without the spell, I can get 76'-114'.Huh.
I guess I stand corrected. Still, the point I was mainly trying to make was that jumping distance is based on your speed, which can be variable, you helped me prove that point, and I thank you for that.
Damn ninjas are creepy. We had a running joke in our last 3.5 game that they got to add their level to every roll, cause sometimes it seems like they do. ;)
Your post makes me wonder: Just how far could one jump, without using Mythic rules?
Check out Aerial assault - awesome concept, potentially impractical? for a build that gets >300' on Jumps. Uses Mythic, but not Cheetah's Speed. Last build had max 223, of which 107 was mythic. [The mythic auto 20 I discount as it is the same as the max non-mythic d20.] Using ki takes a swift to gain +20. Instead use the spell and get +48 minimum. [Not sure what the non-enhancement bonus is as it adds to the spell's effect.]
Check out The formula for 60' movement speed for ideas to bump up speed.
Also, how does the ninja cast that personal range spell on himself?
Check out my Avatar's stats. The spell is 1st level Witch. :-)
/cevah
|
|
I see the problem...
Well, that turned hostile quick.
I'd invite you to take a step back and remove any assumptions of insult or tone from my post.
You asked for a link, saying that you couldn't find one, so I provided it for you.
If you already knew that would be my answer, then why did you ask for it?
|
|
Nefreet, one of the basic issues with your argument, that total distance traveled was the DC for the Acrobatics check is that, with a 5' gap to jump, your minimum DC would appear to be 20, since you have to travel 10' to get the running start, then 5' for the gap, and 5' for the square landed in. That is 20' moved, so DC 20 by your rules, yes?
|
|
Mostly because that link has nothing to do with size modifiers to Acrobatics, I imagine.
Rewinding, again.
I never stated there was a size modifier for Acrobatics (because there isn't). The premise (at the time) was that "Distance Traveled = DC". This would necessarily include the space the creature was landing in.
If you imagine a pit (of any width), and imagine a medium-sized creature and a large-sized creature landing on the other side after a jump, the large-sized creature has traveled 5ft farther than the medium-sized creature.
This is still true regardless of the FAQ.
|
|
Nefreet, one of the basic issues with your argument, that total distance traveled was the DC for the Acrobatics check is that, with a 5' gap to jump, your minimum DC would appear to be 20, since you have to travel 10' to get the running start, then 5' for the gap, and 5' for the square landed in. That is 20' moved, so DC 20 by your rules, yes?
What? No.
Distance of the jump itself. You wouldn't count any movement before the jump or after the landing.
Just because you're a Monk with a speed of 60ft doesn't mean every jump you make is DC 60.
|
|
Nefreet, one of the basic issues with your argument, that total distance traveled was the DC for the Acrobatics check is that, with a 5' gap to jump, your minimum DC would appear to be 20, since you have to travel 10' to get the running start, then 5' for the gap, and 5' for the square landed in. That is 20' moved, so DC 20 by your rules, yes?What? No.
Distance of the jump itself. You wouldn't count any movement before the jump or after the landing.
Just because you're a Monk with a speed of 60ft doesn't mean every jump you make is DC 60.
So, why were you adding distance traveled, but not jumped, into the DCs you were citing?
If you are jumping 10', wouldn't the distance traveled in the jump be 10', so the DC would be 10, rather than 15, to cover the trundling from not-the-edge to jump to landing to not-the-edge?
|
|
why were you adding distance traveled, but not jumped, into the DCs you were citing?
If you are jumping 10', wouldn't the distance traveled in the jump be 10', so the DC would be 10, rather than 15, to cover the trundling from not-the-edge to jump to landing to not-the-edge?
I'm beginning to see why this thread got so large.
It's super simple. From what square were you initiating your jump? That square over there? Now how many squares did you travel until you landed? 3? Then the DC for that jump was 15.
When I'm looking at a battle map I don't care how wide an obstacle is. Unless it's a perfectly square pit (which is rare) all I care about is jumping from one square to another.
Just as though I were walking, swimming, flying or climbing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That wouldn't have been obvious to people reading your posts. People see you write something like that and assume you're trying to convince us that's how it works. That's probably why this thread is still going.
Anyway, it's now established that you're supposed to forget about grid squares for the purposes of the skill check and say, "At what exact point do you start the jump?" A Large creature trying to jump over a ten foot pit moves forwards until his center of gravity is at the edge of the pit, then jumps ten feet (DC 10 if he had enough of a run up) to get his center of gravity to the opposite edge of the pit, then moves forwards until he gets to a point where he can stop. Is this now clear to everyone?
I see the problem...Well, that turned hostile quick.
I'd invite you to take a step back and remove any assumptions of insult or tone from my post.
You asked for a link, saying that you couldn't find one, so I provided it for you.
If you already knew that would be my answer, then why did you ask for it?
There's no assumption on my part. You very obviously condescend me multiple times in several posts... based on YOUR assumption that I don't understand what you're saying.
I completely understand what you're saying and how you (pre-FAQ) calculated Acrobatics DC's.
My question was an attempt to get you to reconcile the fact that you were inventing relationships between tables and text that had no relationship. Nothing in Acrobatics (skill chapter) references creature size (combat chapter). The Acrobatics skill is referenced in the combat chapter, but in a completely unrelated section (moving through squares).
Acrobatics is not mentioned near the table that actually has size modifiers (table 8-1). Nor are there any modifiers listed on the table you linked (table 8-4). So not only did you invent the fact that there was a relationship between 8-4 and Acrobatics, you've invented the fact that 8-4 has modifiers on it at all. If you had instead attempted to modify Acrobatics via table 8-1, I'd at least give you a pass on half of your baseless assertion, since at least using that table would be consistent with other aspects of the game (all modifiers to d20 rolls based on size use that chart, or an inversion of that chart).
By the way, when you alter the DC of a roll, that's called a modifier. So if the DC of a 10' pit is 10+creature size, the creature size would be a modifier to the DC, since the base DC is the pit size.
Don't worry, I'm not mad. I mostly find your condescension comedic. If it isn't intentional, I'd recommend posting more slowly and considering your words in the future.
But please, tell me again how I got it wrong.
|
|
You very obviously condescend me multiple times in several posts.
I don't know you from Adam. I've responded to dozens of posters in this thread. Prior to these last couple replies I don't recall responding to you at all. Take a deep breath and step back. Text is a terrible medium for communicating emotion and tone. Two people can read the same statement and arrive at different conclusions as to its meaning. The only time something should be "obvious" is when a statement is direct.
But please, tell me again how I got it wrong.
I was saying that the space a creature takes up must be counted as part of its distance traveled, and thus the DC for its jump.
You said I was stating that there was some sort of size modifier on the "acrobatics check" (your words) itself. A "check" is the actual d20 roll. The DC is the target # you're trying to reach. Nowhere did I ever say that a creature's size gave it an inherent bonus or penalty on Acrobatics, and I feel that's what people were reading from my responses.
To be fair, all I said in reply to your statement was "size modifier for Acrobatics", when I should have been more complete and said "size modifier for Acrobatics checks". I meant DC, you thought I meant checks, and so here we are.
your continued presence insinuates you haven't moved on... just saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to get back into an argument about a clearly resolved rules issue, but here we go...
Irontruth, Nefreet's perspective on this whole issue was that it's the jump that has a DC, not the obstacle. Hence, asking what the DC to jump the pit would depend on the creature's size, but the DC for any given jump would not. With a reasonable (now rejected) interpretation of "occupy" the fact that you occupy your space leads to that conclusion.
It's not a ridiculous notion that different creatures would have different DCs without it involving modifiers. For example, I don't see any other way you could handle a jump to touch the ceiling of a 12' tall room. Halflings would have a DC of 32 (figuring their arm extends about a foot above their head), humans would be in the 20ish range, and ogres might not even need to make a check.
Nefreet's perspective on this whole issue was that it's the jump that has a DC
which still hasn't justified more than DC 10.
from pure english clearing something means you didn't get hampered along that distance, so if you cleared 10 feet you weren't effected by any part of that 10 feet, you don't STOP in the 10 feet, you cleared it.
he's constantly said it doesn't rely on squares but the moment you move the squares back 2.5 feet, you only have to jump over a single square and so the DC becomes 10 in Nefreet's example. this discontinuity is why the ruling the Devs gave was the Occam's razor solution, it simply had the least hang ups.
|
|
Nefreet's perspective on this whole issue was that it's the jump that has a DCthe moment you move the squares back 2.5 feet, you only have to jump over a single square and so the DC becomes 10 in Nefreet's example.
When you're in combat, trying to jump over a pit to fight the BBEG, you can't just "move the grid back 2.5ft".
Outside of combat, you don't need the grid at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nefreet's perspective on this whole issue was that it's the jump that has a DC
which still hasn't justified more than DC 10.
from pure english clearing something means you didn't get hampered along that distance, so if you cleared 10 feet you weren't effected by any part of that 10 feet, you don't STOP in the 10 feet, you cleared it.
he's constantly said it doesn't rely on squares but the moment you move the squares back 2.5 feet, you only have to jump over a single square and so the DC becomes 10 in Nefreet's example. this discontinuity is why the ruling the Devs gave was the Occam's razor solution, it simply had the least hang ups.
It doesn't rely on squares. It relies on the size of a creature's space. In order for a medium creature not to go from not squeezing on side 1 to not squeezing on side 2, it requires <size of obstacle>+5 movement. If that's the amount that needs to be covered by the jump, that's the DC necessary. The dev clarification was simply that you can be considered jumping from and to the advantageous portions of your space rather than needing to move the entirety of your space during the jump.
There were a couple different versions of his stance (which makes sense - I often clarify/adjust my understanding of my own position when I present it to others). His eventual stance didn't do a great job of saying what happens when your origin or destination space aren't clear, but it resolved the shifting the pit problem.
And besides that, he's not still maintaining the position that he was right. He's merely coming on to defend himself from claims that he was preposterously wrong. Because he wasn't. He made some assumptions in reading the rules that were different from the ones the devs made/baked in.
If we want this thread to die, all that needs to happen is people need to accept Nefreet's statement that his position was refuted from the FAQ without gloating about how wrong he was rather than how right they are. Or Nefreet needs to let stand claims that he doesn't understand how rules work because he made that different assumption. I know which one I consider a more reasonable demand.
Edit: or it could be locked. I'd rather we didn't force that, though.
Nefreet's perspective on this whole issue was that it's the jump that has a DCthe moment you move the squares back 2.5 feet, you only have to jump over a single square and so the DC becomes 10 in Nefreet's example.When you're in combat, trying to jump over a pit to fight the BBEG, you can't just "move the grid back 2.5ft".
Outside of combat, you don't need the grid at all.
inside of combat the grid might just be 2.5 ft back from where someone else would put it, or maybe the pit is just placed with the edges not on the edge of grid lines.
if it relies on space DC = distance cleared is still simpler than DC = distance cleared + creature size.
and I think most people have an issue with how Nefreet doesn't understand/like how it works as he even got all in a kerfuffle with Mark about it. NOT us trying to gloat. (his repeated responses that it's DC is obstacle for instance, along with several comments in other threads)
I was saying that the space a creature takes up must be counted as part of its distance traveled, and thus the DC for its jump.
My point is that this has only ever been an invention on your part. Nothing in the rules actually states this. You have repeatedly said that the rules DO support you in this, except we know that you're wrong. You've even admitted that you're wrong, but then you come right back and put in a statement about how it's obvious (there by implying that to anyone who it isn't obvious too is less observant/rules savvy than you are).
If we want this thread to die, all that needs to happen is people need to accept Nefreet's statement that his position was refuted from the FAQ without gloating about how wrong he was rather than how right they are. Or Nefreet needs to let stand claims that he doesn't understand how rules work because he made that different assumption. I know which one I consider a more reasonable demand.
I'd be fine with that if he wasn't condescending to others for not seeing how obvious his rules interpretation was.
I fully understood his rules interpretation the entire time. My point has always been that it was a result of him seeing things that weren't there, such as a relationship between the Acrobatics skill and size, for which no such relationship is present in the rule book. Literally, zero.
The words "acrobatics" and "size" appear together in the same sentence precisely zero times in the CRB. Yet he had to tell me that he was surprised he had to link me the combat chapter and that clearly I couldn't understand his argument because I wasn't seeing the relationship.
There were sooooo many condescending comments throughout this thread by Nefreet, pointing out how unreasonable people were being for not agreeing with him. Even after being proven wrong, and accepting he was wrong, he still persists in his assertions that his stance was obvious and people who don't see it are unable to see the obvious.