This came up in play and unfortunately it was never really resolved. The question is:
1. If a monk wishes to use his jump ability to attack a creature ~20 ft up can he jump up and make a single attack?
2. Would the creature get an AoO?
3. Would there be any negatives to his attack?
My gut reaction is: 1. Yes, 2. not on the way up but yes on the way down, 3. no.
1. Jumping is essentially movement. If he can jump the 20 ft as part of a move action, he can take a standard action to make an attack at the end of it.
2. Unless the monk is moving under reach, no. Since he's going to fall after the attack, you could rule that the creature gets an AoO as he's falling, since technically he's moving out of a threatened square. However, I don't see anything stopping the monk from using Acrobatics to avoid it.
3. No. In fact, I don't see why he couldn't turn the attack into a charge and gain to gain a positive modifier.
Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought.
2. Unless the monk is moving under reach, no. Since he's going to fall after the attack, you could rule that the creature gets an AoO as he's falling, since technically he's moving out of a threatened square. However, I don't see anything stopping the monk from using Acrobatics to avoid it.
In order to use acrobatics to avoid an AoO you have to move at HALF speed. Since the falling monk can not control the speed in which he falls and that falling is not a move action to begin with, I would say no...you can not use acrobatics in that way.
Also. He could roll an acrobatics check to negate the first 10 ft but not the second. Unless the monk has the ability to slow fall he would take a d6 of damage and land prone.
In order to use acrobatics to avoid an AoO you have to move at HALF speed.
2. Unless the monk is moving under reach, no. Since he's going to fall after the attack, you could rule that the creature gets an AoO as he's falling, since technically he's moving out of a threatened square. However, I don't see anything stopping the monk from using Acrobatics to avoid it.
Or you can increase the DC by 10 to move at full speed.
|
This came up in play and unfortunately it was never really resolved. The question is:
1. If a monk wishes to use his jump ability to attack a creature ~20 ft up can he jump up and make a single attack?
Under SRD 3.5, a jump that ended mid-air had to be followed by another move action to complete the jump; you couldn't take the attack after the jump. In PF, this restriction does not apply. It may be a reasonable requirement to include if the style of your game calls for it.
This came up in play and unfortunately it was never really resolved. The question is:
1. If a monk wishes to use his jump ability to attack a creature ~20 ft up can he jump up and make a single attack?
2. Would the creature get an AoO?
3. Would there be any negatives to his attack?
My gut reaction is: 1. Yes, 2. not on the way up but yes on the way down, 3. no.
1. yes.
2. Same as all movement.3. No, positives.
Technically, higher ground (being above someone) grants +1 hit in 3.5 and PF. Now a DM might argue being higher by jumping isn't ground (but you get the bonus from being on a horse as well and that isn't ground).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Technically, higher ground (being above someone) grants +1 hit in 3.5 and PF. Now a DM might argue being higher by jumping isn't ground (but you get the bonus from being on a horse as well and that isn't ground).
Um, I think he means jumping up so that he can reach an airborn enemy. Thus, not getting above them for higher ground.
Change any of your answers?
Since he's ending his jump in the air, the fall back down would be a damage dealing fall. Monk falling and acrobatics would mitigate that to irrelevance probably, but I'd make him plot all that out and roll whatever rolls.
Since he's ending his jump in the air, the fall back down would be a damage dealing fall. Monk falling and acrobatics would mitigate that to irrelevance probably, but I'd make him plot all that out and roll whatever rolls.
Just to clear some things up. We are talking about a 11th level monk. He was standing with his back to a wall and the enemy was right in front of him but floating 20 ft off the ground. So slow fall would apply.
another thought on this, but could the monk use their standard to grapple to floating enemy?
Yes.
and that would also solve any rules problems brought up by falling
|
|
Like how you cannot normally move after attacking, but also cannot stop your turn in mid air?another thought on this, but could the monk use their standard to grapple to floating enemy?Yes.
and that would also solve any rules problems brought up by falling
Happler, can you provide the cite that you cannot stop your turn in midair in PF?
Yea, it's like ending your move over a pit, you don't stop in mid air like in the Road Runner cartoons, the actions are over and the fall is resolved.
Happler, can you provide the cite that you cannot stop your turn in midair in PF?
No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.
Oddly enough the 3.5 "bullet time jump" still seems to be in effect, if you jump up and attack the rules don't say if you hang there or if you fall down. I'd rather have someone fall down and slightly violate the movement rules than to hang there and violate the laws of physics.
|
Happler, can you provide the cite that you cannot stop your turn in midair in PF?Like how you cannot normally move after attacking, but also cannot stop your turn in mid air?another thought on this, but could the monk use their standard to grapple to floating enemy?Yes.
and that would also solve any rules problems brought up by falling
there is no citation (I may just be house ruling). you fall (per the book)at least 500' per round (thus any fall of less then 500' does not offer you enough time to cast anything other then an immediate action spell). Per my reading of the book, falling 20' would be an immediate action that would happen once your attack was done.
The real question is if falling is counted as movement. If you count it as movement (and thus available for the AoO from the floater) then you are moving both before and after your attack. To me this sounds like the perfect use for something like spring attack.
So, while there is no RAW, I read the RAI as thus.
(but then again, I have been proven to be wrong before..)
edit to add: I do count the jump as movement, and if you extrapolate the rules out for 3d, then jumping up to punch a floater will force you to jump through their threatened area (the 5 foot area below and around them), thus would provoke an AoO.
Yea, conseptually it's kind of like a vertical charge.
If both the up and down were all part of the jump, you're right you'd be on the ground before you could attack, because you can't attck in the middle of a move. The move ends in the air, with no actions left. That's why there's the discussion how the fall back to earth is a *fall*, like falling in a pit. But, as noted it's an 11th level monk next to a wall, so safe fall takes care of that.
I would rather risk the possibility of running afoul of the rules than to run smack into the spirit of allowing anyone, especially monks, to jump up and smack a wizard dumb enough to fly that low over a fighters head. You shouldn't have to get spring attack to do something that cinematic. Flying is already strong enough without nerfing jumping into uselessness.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I once GM'd a PFS game in which my brother's 1st-level monk was in a little treehouse thingie out of which had just popped an evil little flying doll thingie, now hovering (I think) 20' up (level with the monk), 10' away. He tried to jump out and grapple it. I let him, but he failed miserably anyway, taking an AoO on the way to the ground, which happened to involve a held charge of inflict moderate wounds.
That was a fun moment for that dwarf.
|
|
I would rather risk the possibility of running afoul of the rules than to run smack into the spirit of allowing anyone, especially monks, to jump up and smack a wizard dumb enough to fly that low over a fighters head. You shouldn't have to get spring attack to do something that cinematic. Flying is already strong enough without nerfing jumping into uselessness.
And at 10th level the monk can get spring attack as a bonus feat without needing any prereqs.
To me, this is still part of the build. As cinematic as it would be, I also would not allow a barbarian who did not take the rage power, free terrifying howl either.
If you want to build a monk to do those kinds of stunts, it is built into the class, just take the right bonus feats.
I would rather risk the possibility of running afoul of the rules than to run smack into the spirit of allowing anyone, especially monks, to jump up and smack a wizard dumb enough to fly that low over a fighters head. You shouldn't have to get spring attack to do something that cinematic. Flying is already strong enough without nerfing jumping into uselessness.And at 10th level the monk can get spring attack as a bonus feat without needing any prereqs.
To me, this is still part of the build. As cinematic as it would be, I also would not allow a barbarian who did not take the rage power, free terrifying howl either.
If you want to build a monk to do those kinds of stunts, it is built into the class, just take the right bonus feats.
So you feel it is not possable to leap up from the ground and grapple someone flying/dangling over your head? How about the classic villian bit where they dangle the hero over the pit of crocodiles/wolves/theater critics until the beasts teeth are just missing their feet as the critics/wolves/crocks leap up in frustration.
You would be safe until the baddie lowered you down to with in 5 feet of the floor?
Sorry if I am overstating your point but this sounds odd.
I feel that leaping up to grappel or smack a target with in your verticle jump range is a legal move. It is true that you are moving after the attack but it is not controlled movement. I see this as the same thing as a barbarian charging an enemy 70 feet away and falling down a 30' pit that the enemy was levitating over. The barb is moving farther than their legal move 100' vs an 80' charge distance. The only other options are having the barb hang in the air over the pit or stop before the pit which would be odd since they did not know it was there.
Also this kind of leaping is not limited to monks. Barbs and rouges are well known for leaping around the battlefield then there are rings of jumping et all that would allow even the heaviest stalwart defender to manage the odd 5-10 foot upwards leap.
consider a monster with 15' reach sitting 10' up a wall and happily beating up the fighters on the ground. The fighter with the long-spear cannon attack this creature. However this fighter has a ring of jumping and a decent dex giving a total +7 to acrobatics. Your position is that the fighter cannot leap 5' upwards, a dc 10 acrobatics check, and stab the beastie? Please assume there is room for the running start.
Do I understand your position?
And at 10th level the monk can get spring attack as a bonus feat without needing any prereqs.
-A monk can, but they shouldn't have to. It is not raw that falling counts as movement. If you want to get technical with that, you can't jump off a 100 foot bridge because then your jump would exceed your movement: a wall of something prevents you from going over the side.
If you want to build a monk to do those kinds of stunts, it is built into the class, just take the right bonus feats.
Jump up and swing. Anyone with jump should be able to do it.
|
|
I would rather risk the possibility of running afoul of the rules than to run smack into the spirit of allowing anyone, especially monks, to jump up and smack a wizard dumb enough to fly that low over a fighters head. You shouldn't have to get spring attack to do something that cinematic. Flying is already strong enough without nerfing jumping into uselessness.And at 10th level the monk can get spring attack as a bonus feat without needing any prereqs.
To me, this is still part of the build. As cinematic as it would be, I also would not allow a barbarian who did not take the rage power, free terrifying howl either.
If you want to build a monk to do those kinds of stunts, it is built into the class, just take the right bonus feats.
So you feel it is not possable to leap up from the ground and grapple someone flying/dangling over your head? How about the classic villian bit where they dangle the hero over the pit of crocodiles/wolves/theater critics until the beasts teeth are just missing their feet as the critics/wolves/crocks leap up in frustration.
You would be safe until the baddie lowered you down to with in 5 feet of the floor?
Sorry if I am overstating your point but this sounds odd.
I feel that leaping up to grappel or smack a target with in your verticle jump range is a legal move. It is true that you are moving after the attack but it is not controlled movement. I see this as the same thing as a barbarian charging an enemy 70 feet away and falling down a 30' pit that the enemy was levitating over. The barb is moving farther than their legal move 100' vs an 80' charge distance. The only other options are having the barb hang in the air over the pit or stop before the pit which would be odd since they did not know it was there.
Also this kind of leaping is not limited to monks. Barbs and rouges are well known for leaping around the battlefield then there are rings of jumping et all that would allow even the heaviest...
The fighter would be taking a move action, then a standard action. By the way that RAW is written, the move action is resolved first, then the standard action. So the fighter moves, jumps, and falls. Now he attacks.
Now, if the fighter wishes to charge, I would allow that, since I do not see acrobatics (and thus jump) as separate from the movement needed for a charge. But then you take then penalties for charging (- to AC, possible AoO) and you still fall after the attack.
I should say that I cannot see doing this without penalties without feats (spring attack, etc). There are feats that are designed to make things like this possible (skill focus acro, dodge, mobility, spring attack, etc) and in fact, it takes a lot of feats to make this doable without penalties. I do not cheapen those feats by giving them for free.
|
|
And at 10th level the monk can get spring attack as a bonus feat without needing any prereqs.
-A monk can, but they shouldn't have to. It is not raw that falling counts as movement. If you want to get technical with that, you can't jump off a 100 foot bridge because then your jump would exceed your movement: a wall of something prevents you from going over the side.
If you want to build a monk to do those kinds of stunts, it is built into the class, just take the right bonus feats.Jump up and swing. Anyone with jump should be able to do it.
but not without penalties.
but not without penalties.
Charge mechanics are fine. The attack of opportunity going down is a given. Immortal wizards 10 feet off the ground are just silly.
I should say that I cannot see doing this without penalties without feats (spring attack, etc). There are feats that are designed to make things like this possible (skill focus acro, dodge, mobility, spring attack, etc) and in fact, it takes a lot of feats to make this doable without penalties. I do not cheapen those feats by giving them for free.
I can see that. So let's simplify things. Picture a 5' by 5' stone cell with no roof in the floor of a larger cavern. Monster dangling from the roof of the cavern usling ranged attacks or reach to attack. Fighter in cell has a hand weapon and a ring of jumping powerful enough to allow a upwards jump to with in attack range of monster if the fighter rolls a 10 or better on the check. No other equipment feats skills ect involved.
Can the fighter attack the monster by jumping up and hitting it with her weapon?
|
|
Falling is a non-action and doesn't count as voluntary movement.
If falling counted against your movement and you couldn't fall any further than your remaining movement for the round:
1. You would only be able to vertically jump a distance equal to half your speed, regardless of your acrobatics check. You're a dwarf with +100 to your acrobatics? Sorry, you can only jump 10 feet in the air, because the 10 foot fall costs movement.
2. Creatures who move faster fall faster. That pixie with its 60 foot fly speed falls six times faster than the lard-butt lame oracle in full plate with his 10 foot move speed.Sorry, that position is completely untenable.
you are right, falling does not count against your movement, but it is resolved in the same time as movement. If you do a move action to jump 20 feet straight up, per RAW, you resolve the movement, since you are not on a solid surface at the end of movement, you fall, then you work out the standard action.
That is why I can see it as a charge. A full round action that has movement and an attack as part of it. you resolve the whole action, then fall at the end. But you also take all the penalties for charging.
Here is the rule out of the book to back me up to:
In the PRD under Special Movement rules
Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.
It does not say you end your turn in an illegal space, but you end your movement in an illegal space. Floating in the air without some form of levitation or flight is an illegal space. So, before you resolve the rest of your turn, you place yourself in either the last legal position or nearest legal position, which ever is closer. So, you either fall, or catch yourself on a ledge nearby before you continue your turn.
|
|
I should say that I cannot see doing this without penalties without feats (spring attack, etc). There are feats that are designed to make things like this possible (skill focus acro, dodge, mobility, spring attack, etc) and in fact, it takes a lot of feats to make this doable without penalties. I do not cheapen those feats by giving them for free.I can see that. So let's simplify things. Picture a 5' by 5' stone cell with no roof in the floor of a larger cavern. Monster dangling from the roof of the cavern usling ranged attacks or reach to attack. Fighter in cell has a hand weapon and a ring of jumping powerful enough to allow a upwards jump to with in attack range of monster if the fighter rolls a 10 or better on the check. No other equipment feats skills ect involved.
Can the fighter attack the monster by jumping up and hitting it with her weapon?
not as a move/standard combo, only as a charge or some other full round action that include both movement and attack.
Per RAW you cannot end your movement in an illegal space.
not as a move/standard combo, only as a charge or some other full round action that include both movement and attack.Per RAW you cannot end your movement in an illegal space.
Does it matter if there is too little room for a charge. Say the fighter has a non-reach weapon and the beast is 10'above the floor of the pit. A charge requires 10' of movement but a 5' jump will bring the fighter into attack range. Can they attack?
|
|
"In mid-air" is not an illegal space. If it were, you'd break the speed of light when falling (or fall upwards or sideways, if for example you stepped off a high dive board--the nearest legal space would be the one you just left).
Yep, you resolve the issue, thus fall to the ground if there is nowhere else to go up there (or in the case of the diver, straight down into the water).
per the book you fall at least 500' in the first turn 20' is just about instant from that point of view and deffinitaly short enough to work out that closest spot.
Now if you jumped over a cliff that was 2000 feet up, yes, you would end your turn in mid-air. But that is a trick of a round only being 6 seconds. You will also begin and end your next turn in mid-air unless you do something about it too.
But for that character that jumped up 5' as a move action, hoping to attack as a standard. They cannot end their movement in mid-air. They will fall, then work out their standard. Just use a full round action like a charge to do the attack. That way the attack is part of the movement, and afterwards, you drop back to the ground. This also better represents the fact that during the jump, you cannot defend yourself as well since you do not have a solid footing to work with.
|
|
Does it matter if there is too little room for a charge. Say the fighter has a non-reach weapon and the beast is 10'above the floor of the pit. A charge requires 10' of movement but a 5' jump will bring the fighter into attack range. Can they attack?
not as a move/standard combo, only as a charge or some other full round action that include both movement and attack.Per RAW you cannot end your movement in an illegal space.
that 5' jump for the fighter would have a DC of 40 for acrobatics. (5' high jump = DC of 20, doubled for no 10' running start). If they have the 10' running start, then they have the charge. If not, then most will not be able to make the jump.
|
|
"In mid-air" is not an illegal space. If it were, you'd break the speed of light when falling (or fall upwards or sideways, if for example you stepped off a high dive board--the nearest legal space would be the one you just left).Yep, you resolve the issue, thus fall to the ground if there is nowhere else to go up there (or in the case of the diver, straight down into the water).Not according to the rule you cited. That rule says you move to the place you started from, or the nearest legal square. Thus, it's impossible to dive off of a diving board that's higher than your movement speed, by your interpretation of the rules. You'll always end up back on the board.
Similarly, if you were to be teleported 10,000 feet in the air, you would instantly hit the ground, because you're moved to the nearest legal square.
You are using a move action to drop off of a high spot, you are not ending your move action to punch the guy standing on the other diving board.
You have the choice as a diver of either grabbing the board and pulling yourself back up, or dropping.
So, how is stopping in mid air a legal ending for a movement?
being greater then 500' from the ground is a special situation that is covered under falling (for that matter so is the drop from the jump).
So, you would let a character do a move action, stop in mid air to attack, then finish the results of the move action (due to no solid surface) and drop to the ground? Or do they stay hanging in the air till their next turn, at which they get another attack before dropping to the ground?
If you try to break up the move action and the standard action you have to resolve the move action first, before resolving the standard action. If you choose a full round action, you resolve the whole thing before falling.
There are actions and feats designed to allow someone to attack as part of a movement. If you do not like them, either houserule away, or play something else...
Involuntary movement does not provoke except for very rare circumstances (such as from certain Greater [maneuver] feats).
A person jumping up at an enemy would only provoke if he passed through multiple vertical threatened spaces. Regardless, he would not provoke on the way down as falling is not voluntary movement short of deliberately jumping down. The attacker in the example voluntarily jumped up, not down, so it does not typically provoke at all (though jumping particularly high at a creature with reach might).
Normally, I'd call this RAW, but since RAW doesn't really cover three-dimensional movement, I'll settle with "That's my take on it."
EDIT: On a related topic, one thing that I find surprising is that a lot of players seem to forget that there is no limitation on how many times you can jump in a single move. Got 60-foot movement speed and a 120-foot tall tree with sturdy branches every 5 feet? Take a 10 on your 60 mini-jumps (or not) and get at the top in a single double-move action. :D
Seriously, totally legit.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I know of no monk ability that allows you to jump twenty feet in the air.
Fast Movement (Ex): At 3rd level, a monk gains an enhancement bonus to his land speed, as shown on Table: Monk. A monk in armor or carrying a medium or heavy load loses this extra speed.
Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed above 30 feet.
Fast Movement (Ex): At 3rd level, a monk gains an enhancement bonus to his land speed, as shown on Table: Monk. A monk in armor or carrying a medium or heavy load loses this extra speed.
Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed above 30 feet.
That fast movement doesn't count as *base* land speed, does it?
And even if it does, it doesn't change anything about my argument--I wasn't saying that monks can't jump twenty feet in the air; even a dwarf could theoretically do that--I'm merely pointing out that it would be extremely difficult to actually pull off.
Your base speed is what is listed on your sheet, namely how far you can move as a single move action. So, yes, monks are AMAZING leapers.
This was clarified by the game developers in one of my question threads.
Barbs have a lvl 6 rage power, beastial leaper? that lets them make an attack during a move action. It's spring attack with out as many rules. But looking at these two abilities, i think that a jump, as movement, has to have a end point, a to b. You can't jump strait up unless you have a way to land... also, a vert leap is huge DCs.
That fast movement doesn't count as *base* land speed, does it?
Yup. its confusing but base speed is your speed, as opposed to your movement rate. The wording is there to keep you from using your run speed as a jump modifier and clearing tall buildings.
And even if it does, it doesn't change anything about my argument--I wasn't saying that monks can't jump twenty feet in the air; even a dwarf could theoretically do that--I'm merely pointing out that it would be extremely difficult to actually pull off.
Well, if the target is 20 feet up you only need to jump 10 feet to get them, since you're 5 feet tall and you have 5 feet of reach.
10th level monk with 10 ranks in acrobatics, a +3 dex mod, +12 for high speed, can get a running start and jump that high with a 15.
Hadn't thought about that fact. Thanks for pointing it out.Well, if the target is 20 feet up you only need to jump 10 feet to get them, since you're 5 feet tall and you have 5 feet of reach.
My dragon disciple once pointed it out to a flying wizard, but he was 10 feet tall and had 10 feet of reach at the time :) Come here little wizard....
That fast movement doesn't count as *base* land speed, does it?Yup. its confusing but base speed is your speed, as opposed to your movement rate. The wording is there to keep you from using your run speed as a jump modifier and clearing tall buildings.
And even if it does, it doesn't change anything about my argument--I wasn't saying that monks can't jump twenty feet in the air; even a dwarf could theoretically do that--I'm merely pointing out that it would be extremely difficult to actually pull off.Well, if the target is 20 feet up you only need to jump 10 feet to get them, since you're 5 feet tall and you have 5 feet of reach.
10th level monk with 10 ranks in acrobatics, a +3 dex mod, +12 for high speed, can get a running start and jump that high with a 15.
Dont think Monks need running starts at 10 level.
|
|
Ready to attack when within reach as a Standard, jump as a Move.
You can move before a ready. You cannot ready a move and a ready; it's one or the other. If you are proposing a jump into mid air and then ready to attack if on reach, I'm gonna suggest this is why 3.5 had the rule that your next action if ending in mid-air must be a move. I think it would be great for aLoony Tunes or Roger Rabbit style game, though.