| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andy Ferguson was arguing recently that Acrobatics can be used to jump over obstacles during a Charge action. His post arguing why is here. He might even be entirely correct, but the reason for his argument is actually because using Acrobatics is a non-action, and is used as part of another action, or as an unspecified reaction (common sense might suggest as part of a move action or when falling, but common sense is uncommon and rules are rules).
My initial and secondary responses.
EDIT: Acrobatics is better than evasion! You can use it while flat-footed, and if a mage decides to fireball or otherwise AoE you, you can just make a jump check in reaction to move 20-30ft away, out of the AoE before it lands. Screw Evasion!
EDIT 2: I am now sold that monks are the greatest class because of their movement. I always thought people meant because their natural speed was so great, but now I see it's because they can jump hundreds of feet without ever even taking a move action. Just speak a few times and you can land on your enemy and full attack.
"Tumataki senryu tolasha shoryuapah!" --> Leap 300 ft and preform a hurricane kick on the enemy's face.
EDIT 3: Hell, it's even better than that, because then after you pound face with your full-attack, you make a jump check to leap away as part of your full-attack, or maybe the last attack of your full attack, or maybe because you shout "Bonzai!" at the end of your full-attack, and then bam, you leap away. You just leaped across the map, hurricane kicked some fool in the face, then leaped back. Wait 'till your enemy's turn, then stuffs going to get bouncy!
The most wonderful thing about Tiggers!
By Andy's argument, we can use Jump to evade attacks. Since it is no action, and is applied during an unspecific action or reaction, if someone decides to charge me, I'll just make a jump check and leap 20 ft away as a nonspecific reaction. Hell, I'll just make a jump check every time I take an action, and every time someone else takes an action. I speak (free action) so I jump 20-30 feet. I take a 5ft. step and jump another 20-30 feet. I will attack with my bow, and jump another 20-30 feet. My friend the mage speaks, so I'll jump 20-30 feet. He begins casting a spell, so I'll jump 20-30 ft, and then he moves 30 ft, so I'll jump 20-30 ft. When our enemy begins their turn, they will draw a weapon, and I will jump 20-30 ft...My argument is that you can jump as part of a charge.
Yep. But the reason you're saying you can jump as part of a charge is because it is a skill that you can use to jump as part of any other action, and you quoted that it can apparently be used as a nonspecific reaction. Since it doesn't specify what sort of action you can jump as a part of, being able to jump as part of a charge is just as valid as being able to jump during speaking, or jump during an attack, or jump during someone else's movement, turn, speaking, scratching their butt, whatever.
So I actually think that by RAW you can totally jump during a charge, and also by RAW you can totally jump at anytime. However, unlike woodland stride, the area you're jumping over is still treated as rough terrain for you, so the charge rules probably negate it anyway; but who cares. I don't ever want to charge again. Just take tons of ranks in Acrobatics and be a Tigger! Their bouncy pouncy pouncy bouncy, fun-fun-fun-fun-fun!
I had never noticed this before. Suddenly, monks are amazing, because all that sweet, sweet jumping ability means they are assuredly the fastest and most amazing class at 1st level, and can full-attack with impunity. Except that if they try to full-attack someone, they can just jump away from the monk, of course the monk can react to their jumping away by jumping as part of their jump, but of course they could just jump again, so maybe monks aren't all that great.
Either way, this beats the commoner rail-gun by a mile. :P
Actually I was arguing for being able to jump during a charge cause it makes sense, it just happens that the rules agree with me. Your interpretation doesn't make sense, though the rules also agree with you.
Actually I was arguing for being able to jump during a charge cause it makes sense, it just happens that the rules agree with me. Your interpretation doesn't make sense, though the rules also agree with you.
You can jump around all you want during a charge, but charge also flat out states that you cannot charge if there's an obstacle in your path. So, if you're trying to jump obstacles during the charge, literal translation of RAW disagrees with you.
Actually I was arguing for being able to jump during a charge cause it makes sense, it just happens that the rules agree with me. Your interpretation doesn't make sense, though the rules also agree with you.
Hey, no worries. You wanted to argue RAW, and we found that according to RAW you're entirely right. You can jump during a charge, or anything else even. You can jump and full-attack with your sword. That makes pretty good sense I guess, since I can probably jump a good 10 feet or so and end my jump swinging my sword like crazy (maybe even swing my sword around while I'm jumping). I would probably get pretty tired, but I'm not a D&D character who lives in a fantasy world either.
In my own games, I'd probably say Jump is part of a move action - like it used to be - and acrobatics can be used in reaction to falling to reduce damage (like tumble used to be). But hey, we're talking about Pathfinder. I've also qued this up for a FAQ, or at least errata. My god it needs some errata something fierce (especially since the FAQ is neither entirely accurate nor RAW).
I still don't think that you should be able to just make an acrobatics check as part of a charge because that negates Charge's limitations except when you're trying to jump through a wall or something. Likewise, we have Acrobatic Charge (a class feature) for using Acrobatics to avoid obstacles and terrain during a charge.
But, let's talk Tiggers! :P
EDIT: Speaking of Tiggers, Tigers would be pretty scary like this. They can roar, leap from the bushes, then charge you without terrain impediments of any sort, and full-attack your face for lots of awesomeness. Also, Tyrannosaur are scary too. Roar! *jump*, Roar! *jump*, Bite->Grab! *jump*, nom nom nom.
Obstacle isn't an absolute value. You can't charge if something blocks you or slows you but if you jump over it, it doesn't do either of those. It's like arguing you can't charge while flying cause if you weren't flying you wouldn't be able to reach a square.
Obstacle isn't an absolute value. You can't charge if something blocks you or slows you but if you jump over it, it doesn't do either of those. It's like arguing you can't charge while flying cause if you weren't flying you wouldn't be able to reach a square.
The flying rules work in three dimensions. I tend to think of them like layers.
Height Value 5
Height Value 4
Height Value 3
Height Value 2
Height Value 1
Height Value 0
Height Value -1.
Etc.
Obstacle isn't an absolute value. You can't charge if something blocks you or slows you but if you jump over it, it doesn't do either of those. It's like arguing you can't charge while flying cause if you weren't flying you wouldn't be able to reach a square.
A pit blocks movement. The rules don't say if you can jump over it.
The line of charging passes through that square.
Do pits block movement? Yes
Is line going through that square? Yes.
Then you cant charge. As I said you being able to normally jump does not mean it is not a movement blocker. By that logic you could just jump over difficult terrain, and the duelist also now has a nigh useless class ability.
Obstacle isn't an absolute value. You can't charge if something blocks you or slows you but if you jump over it, it doesn't do either of those. It's like arguing you can't charge while flying cause if you weren't flying you wouldn't be able to reach a square.
If any
line from your starting space to the ending space passesthrough a square that blocks movement, slows movement,
or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.
There's your absolute value right there, actually. So, even jumping, the line from start to end is still through a square that blocks movement is considered an obstacle and negates your charge.
In the games that I run, I use acrobatic jumping as part of a move action. So no leaping across the battlefield and full attacking. No jumping silliness in general. You could theoretically argue that you can do acrobatics as part of a free action, but free actions even state that they consume a very small amount of time and effort, and has the clause in there that GM's can rule reasonable limits. I think all the jumping nonsense is outside the realm of very small amount of time/effort, and far outside the realm of reasonable.
Forgetting about the rules for a moment Ashiel, do you not think that someone could leap over an obstacle and still charge? I mean Calvary leaping over a stone wall is kind of, to me, an iconic example of a charge.
In D&D it's not uncommon for characters to be able to jump higher then anything in the real world, so you get situations where jumping over a 10ft wide pit is easy, which is kind of odd I admit. But the idea that someone would hurdle an obstacle to get to there target seems like it belongs as part of a charge.
Obstacle isn't an absolute value. You can't charge if something blocks you or slows you but if you jump over it, it doesn't do either of those. It's like arguing you can't charge while flying cause if you weren't flying you wouldn't be able to reach a square.
I will also add:
Obstacles: Like difficult terrain, obstacles can hamper movement. If an obstacle hampers movement but doesn't completely block it, each obstructed square or obstacle between squares counts as 2 squares of movement. You must pay this cost to cross the obstacle, in addition to the cost to move into the square on the other side. If you don't have sufficient movement to cross the obstacle and move into the square on the other side, you can't cross it. Some obstacles may also require a skill check to cross.
On the other hand, some obstacles block movement entirely. A character can't move through a blocking obstacle.
Flying and incorporeal creatures are able to avoid most obstacles.
Obstacle=pit
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
It seems that the pit is an obstacle that eats up 2 squares of movement.
The charging rules that that if you are slowed you can't charge.
Obstacle isn't an absolute value. You can't charge if something blocks you or slows you but if you jump over it, it doesn't do either of those. It's like arguing you can't charge while flying cause if you weren't flying you wouldn't be able to reach a square.If any
line from your starting space to the ending space passes
through a square that blocks movement, slows movement,
or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.There's your absolute value right there, actually. So, even jumping, the line from start to end is still through a square that blocks movement is considered an obstacle and negates your charge.
It doesn't block your movement. Otherwise woodland stride is useless, or featherstep.
Forgetting about the rules for a moment Ashiel, do you not think that someone could leap over an obstacle and still charge? I mean Calvary leaping over a stone wall is kind of, to me, an iconic example of a charge.
In D&D it's not uncommon for characters to be able to jump higher then anything in the real world, so you get situations where jumping over a 10ft wide pit is easy, which is kind of odd I admit. But the idea that someone would hurdle an obstacle to get to there target seems like it belongs as part of a charge.
Real world examples don't matter. Game rules do.
In the real world water conducts electricity. In the game world shooting lightening bolt into a body of water has no affect.
It seems that the pit is an obstacle that eats up 2 squares of movement.
The charging rules that that if you are slowed you can't charge.
Are you really arguing that falling into a 30ft deep pit eats up two squares of movement?
Forgetting about the rules for a moment Ashiel, do you not think that someone could leap over an obstacle and still charge? I mean Calvary leaping over a stone wall is kind of, to me, an iconic example of a charge.
To me, it's an iconic example of a double-move or run action, both of which would be perfectly valid for leaping over the obstacle, but not charging. Otherwise, in Braveheart, all those charging horses would have just jumped over those guys readied to brace with spears.
In D&D it's not uncommon for characters to be able to jump higher then anything in the real world, so you get situations where jumping over a 10ft wide pit is easy, which is kind of odd I admit. But the idea that someone would hurdle an obstacle to get to there target seems like it belongs as part of a charge.
They can totally jump over stuff. Just not during a charge. Unless of course you have Acrobatic Charge. :D
But yes, Tiggers my friend!
Since RAW you can jump as an unspecified reaction, or as part of another action, do you think we could get someone to jump to the other side of the world in 1 round? We'd need lots of actions, but it would multiply exponentially. For example, if we have 1 5th level wizard and 1 monk. The monk moves, then jumps, then speaks, then jumps, then punches, then jumps, then the wizard speaks, the monk jumps, the wizard begins casting a spell, the monk jumps, the wizard casts Summon Monster III and summons 5 riding dogs, and the monk jumps, the riding dogs all bark, so the monk jumps 5 more times, the dogs move, the monk jumps 5 more times, the dogs bite at the ground, and the monk jumps 5 more times.
Our monk has jumped at, let's say 20ft, 20 times, so he has cleared 400 ft in this round. Now if we also had some more party members, or some badguys...
Are you really arguing that falling into a 30ft deep pit eats up two squares of movement?It seems that the pit is an obstacle that eats up 2 squares of movement.
The charging rules that that if you are slowed you can't charge.
No I am arguing that trying to jump it does.
Once again--> each obstructed square or obstacle between squares counts as 2 squares of movement
That is from the book/PRD. Nothing says jumping reduces it to one square.
It doesn't block your movement. Otherwise woodland stride is useless, or featherstep.Obstacle isn't an absolute value. You can't charge if something blocks you or slows you but if you jump over it, it doesn't do either of those. It's like arguing you can't charge while flying cause if you weren't flying you wouldn't be able to reach a square.If any
line from your starting space to the ending space passes
through a square that blocks movement, slows movement,
or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.There's your absolute value right there, actually. So, even jumping, the line from start to end is still through a square that blocks movement is considered an obstacle and negates your charge.
Allies don't block YOUR movement either, because they can let you pass. But notice they still count as an obstacle. And yes, it does block your movement. You're just avoiding it by turning that straight line into the curve of a jump. Hell, a brick wall doesn't block if I use my curvy movement to go around it. But it doesn't work that way. You can try to twist it any way you want, but you're wrong.
17 posts in 39 minutes. Not bad.
Our monk has jumped at, let's say 20ft, 20 times, so he has cleared 400 ft in this round. Now if we also had some more party members, or some badguys...
I'm missing something: how are you getting around this restriction?
No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.
Are you claiming that "maximum movement for the round" is undefined, for instance?
(As an aside: I've noted this before, but sadly, PFRPG really bollixed up the Jump skill when they translated it from 3.5. We lost hopping up, vertical reach, etc. Sigh...)
Our monk has jumped at, let's say 20ft, 20 times, so he has cleared 400 ft in this round. Now if we also had some more party members, or some badguys...I'm missing something: how are you getting around this restriction?
No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.Are you claiming that "maximum movement for the round" is undefined, for instance?
Well I'm not sure what maximum movement for the round is. Is that your base speed, your buffed base speed, your speed on a double move, your speed on a charge, your speed while running, your speed while running with the Run feat, the speed you travel when you're tossed by a wizard via Telekinesis, or...some other speed I'm not aware of? >.>
EDIT: On a side note, if it's your base movement speed, then monks actually get screwed even worse because suddenly they really can't jump very far. A 20th level monk would have a +60 to jump via class level + ranks + class skill + speed bonus + dexterity and then +20 for spending a key point, but couldn't jump more than 60 ft.
How sad that would be. :(
(As an aside: I've noted this before, but sadly, PFRPG really bollixed up the Jump skill when they translated it from 3.5. We lost hopping up, vertical reach, etc. Sigh...)
Agreed, 100%.
You can jump around all you want during a charge, but charge also flat out states that you cannot charge if there's an obstacle in your path. So, if you're trying to jump obstacles during the charge, literal translation of RAW disagrees with you.Is there a definition of obstacle given in RAW?
If not, then wouldn't be reasonable to say that if you can jump over it as part of movement that it isn't an obstacle to your movement?
Sean Mahoney
If the game uses the word obstacle but does not define it then we use the real life definition which is something in your way.
The charge rules basically state that if the imaginary line passes through a square containing something in your way you can't charge.
My last post also covers the issue since you can't charge if something slows you down, and trying to bypass an obstacle definitely does.
It seems to me that a big part of the "can you charge if you have to jump over an obstacle?" question is what is the definition of obstacle. The word is used in RAW but not defined.
A) If something could restrict any form of movement it is an obstacle to movement and so prevents charging (unless specifically excepted, like flying)
or
B) If something can be avoided through use of a movement modifier, like jumping or flying, then it isn't an obstacle to that specific move and so does not restrict the charge.
Personally, I am more in the B camp. But it doesn't say which is right in RAW, so there isn't a right RAW answer.
Sean Mahoney
It seems to me that a big part of the "can you charge if you have to jump over an obstacle?" question is what is the definition of obstacle.
My two cents: I think the more important wording is "directly toward the designated opponent". Jumping over something might be moving directly towards your opponent (if your opponent is higher than you, say) or it might not be (if your opponent is at the same height or less than you). YMMV.
Wasn't there a 3.5 feat called leap attack that allowed you to do this in addition to additional damage.
I think it is disallowed because don't you have to charge in a striaght line directly towards your opponent. The path you take in a jump is not a striaght line but you actually jump up into the air when jumping. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Also you cannot get a direct path with a running start either so double the dc need at least 20 to get the minimum 10 feet to get a charge.
By Andy's argument, we can use Jump to evade attacks. Since it is no action, and is applied during an unspecific action or reaction, if someone decides to charge me, I'll just make a jump check and leap 20 ft away as a nonspecific reaction.
No. Well, maybe by his argument, but not by the rules. Using acrobatics to jump still counts as using your movement for the round. To that end, you may only use acrobatics to jump when you have movement you are able to use - for instance, if you're charging, or if you're using a move action, or if you're withdrawing, or if you're running. If you're running or charging, the movement of your jump will require you to keep moving in a straight line via the movement rules for charging and running.
Yes, it does say that acrobatics checks can be used as a reaction to a situation, but that is not referring to all acrobatics checks. It is referring to the reactive uses of acrobatics (for instance, you make a check when you take damage while balancing). Jumping is done as part of another action, because it uses movement and you have no available movement unless you take an action which allows movement.
Allies don't block YOUR movement either, because they can let you pass. But notice they still count as an obstacle. And yes, it does block your movement. You're just avoiding it by turning that straight line into the curve of a jump. Hell, a brick wall doesn't block if I use my curvy movement to go around it. But it doesn't work that way. You can try to twist it any way you want, but you're wrong.
Allies are called out specifically because they are something that doesn't block your movement. And they don't count as an obstacle, they count as creature in one of the squares you are passing through.
And by the rest are you saying if there is a slight rise in the ground that you can no longer charge, as that is no longer a straight line? That the presence of a curb blocks all charging?
It's fine suggesting I'm wrong, but without something to back it up, it seems spiteful.
|
In my mind, the "straight line" rule is to avoid charges that break momentum to avoid obstacles. Jumping does not do that. It preserves momentum when avoiding obstacles, so it's fine in my camp.
In my world, Jumping can be done as a non-action as part of any movement (like stealth). Not just a move action, but any movement what-so-ever. As a house-rule I ignore the maximum distance limit thing and just have you pause in mid-air if you go more than you have the movement for that turn (which is quite a ways if you run).
AFAIK it is RAW that the charge is only broken if the obstacle was an obstacle to you. If you do not touch the ground, the fact it's sticky or greased does not affect your ability to charge (I'm looking at you, Heavens oracle). If you fly, the pit between you and the opponent doesn't affect you. And if you can jump successfully, a small section of rocky ground or a pit does not count either.
Note that you must land on a clear square for this to work for the charge, otherwise you're landing on difficult terrain/obstacle and have thus not bypassed it.
To the person who said that people could just jump over bracing people: Yeah, right! They would have to clear a solid 15ft to avoid the reach weapon's total reach, and that would take a minimum of a 60 on a jump check. Good luck with that. If you can pull that jump check off reliably, you DESERVE to pass that person unscathed.
Final note: It would, IMO, be fair to require a feat to jump during a charge, but I try to err on the side of "too good" for martial characters since I know I will for casters. This does not affect my opinion on other sources of obstacle bypassing.
Also don't we have nimble moves and acrobatic steps and doesn't this devalue those feats. If you have nimble moves you ignore 5 feet of difficult terrain and since you are ignoring it you can still charge. Acrobatic steps allows further movement to do this. Also you could use the agile feet power of the travel domain and still charge as you ignore the difficult terrain. IF you ignore it it is not there.
Also I think the curb thing ends up being stupid. A more rigorous way to state that you cannot jump is a smooth path along the surface of the ground(or anyhting else you are walking on) towards the enemy in the charge rules.
|
|
Also don't we have nimble moves and acrobatic steps and doesn't this devalue those feats. If you have nimble moves you ignore 5 feet of difficult terrain and since you are ignoring it you can still charge. Acrobatic steps allows further movement to do this. Also you could use the agile feet power of the travel domain and still charge as you ignore the difficult terrain. IF you ignore it it is not there.
Also I think the curb thing ends up being stupid. A more rigorous way to state that you cannot jump is a smooth path along the surface of the ground(or anyhting else you are walking on) towards the enemy in the charge rules.
Don't forget that the ability to ignore 5ft of difficult terrain allows the precious 5ft step. Normally that difficult terrain would block that action. This is what I view Nimble Moves as being for, primarily. Also, that "jump over" technique is very very hard if the difficult terrain starts closer than 10 ft as it double the jump check.
Remember that the "jumping" technique doesn't work so well for those who don't invest heavily in it, and especially those who have heavier armor. The average cleric will likely have a -4 to -6 armor check penalty and low dex. Not a good recipe for making even short jumps.
Another bad situation for the "jump" technique: More than one discontinuous piece of difficult terrain. Have 10 clear feet, then 10 rough feet, then 5 clear feet, then another 10 rough feet. The character would get the running start for the first section, but not for the second (requiring either a DC20 or DC30 check, depending on whether you do your jump distances edge-to-edge or center-to-center). And failing that check can knock you prone.
In short: Those feats are much more reliable and safe than using the jumping, which is an extremely situational (and for the non-acrobat, risky) maneuver, in addition to being useful for other situations as well (such as low ceilings, where jumps greater than about 5ft aren't really possible).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I'm not sure what maximum movement for the round is. Is that your base speed, your buffed base speed, your speed on a double move, your speed on a charge, your speed while running, your speed while running with the Run feat, the speed you travel when you're tossed by a wizard via Telekinesis, or...some other speed I'm not aware of? >.>
An Acrobatics check to jump is part of another action (rather than its own action) so the 'maximum movement' mentioned is the maximum movement for whatever action you're doing in order to move is. Or, to put it another way, jumping just 'enhances' the movement a little, it doesn't add any distance to it.
So, for example, if you're faced with a series of 10ft square pits, each spaced 10ft apart, you can chose to take the run action, and make an Acrobatics check to jump over each one in turn as you reach them - the number of jumps you happen to make during your run action isn't limited (although the more checks you need to make, the higher your chance of eventually failing and suffering the appropriate consequences).
On the other hand, you can't jump (in any meaningful distance-based sense) when you take an action which provides zero movement.
So yes, jumping is great for avoiding obstacles, difficult terrain, and the like if you happen to be good at it, but it never, ever, extends your movement beyond the normal amount of squares you could cross with the action you're taking.
Also don't we have nimble moves and acrobatic steps and doesn't this devalue those feats. If you have nimble moves you ignore 5 feet of difficult terrain and since you are ignoring it you can still charge. Acrobatic steps allows further movement to do this. Also you could use the agile feet power of the travel domain and still charge as you ignore the difficult terrain. IF you ignore it it is not there.
Also I think the curb thing ends up being stupid. A more rigorous way to state that you cannot jump is a smooth path along the surface of the ground(or anyhting else you are walking on) towards the enemy in the charge rules.
Don't forget that the ability to ignore 5ft of difficult terrain allows the precious 5ft step. Normally that difficult terrain would block that action. This is what I view Nimble Moves as being for, primarily. Also, that "jump over" technique is very very hard if the difficult terrain starts closer than 10 ft as it double the jump check.
Remember that the "jumping" technique doesn't work so well for those who don't invest heavily in it, and especially those who have heavier armor. The average cleric will likely have a -4 to -6 armor check penalty and low dex. Not a good recipe for making even short jumps.
Another bad situation for the "jump" technique: More than one discontinuous piece of difficult terrain. Have 10 clear feet, then 10 rough feet, then 5 clear feet, then another 10 rough feet. The character would get the running start for the first section, but not for the second (requiring either a DC20 or DC30 check, depending on whether you do your jump distances edge-to-edge or center-to-center). And failing that check can knock you prone.
In short: Those feats are much more reliable and safe than using the jumping, which is an extremely situational (and for the non-acrobat, risky) maneuver, in addition to being useful for other situations as well (such as low ceilings, where jumps greater than about 5ft aren't really possible).
I think the 5 foot step is the main function of those feats as well. Also works great if someone gets inside your reach with a reach weapon you could 5 foot step back in difficult terrain. Also Dawnflower dervish archtype allows this as well for ten feet.
This subject is always going to get brought up so long as real life history continues to be filled with countless thousands of examples of real soldiers charging through trenches, jumping bodies and other low obstacles, and still affecting a successful attack. Real life has been, and is full of such examples, and as long as people at your table are aware of it, somebody is going to stop the game to argue if the GM is too inflexible to allow the character to jump a ten-foot-wide pit as part of his charge.
You have to, because everybody and their monkey's uncle KNOWS it can be done under the right circumstances, regardless of the most strict reading of RAW. This is just one of those situations.
Now, the key to it is, are the circumstances "right?" In our game, I allow it if the "obstacle" is a hole or pit, or a very reasonably low thing, such as a humanoid body. AND if the charging character has 10 feet of unobstructed movement at the beginning, and at least 5 feet of open space to land in at the end to complete his charge. Not only has this never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever broken a game, it often results in entertaining and hilarious results when the Acrobatics check fails. And when the charge succeeds, it's often an especially exciting and dramatic moment.
This is a win. Stop arguing over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can totally move through a trench and make an attack. That's called moving 30 ft, possibly losing some movement while going across the trench, and then making an attack on the other side. Or double moving through a trench or jumping over it. Same with the guy who mentioned a charging horse leaping over an obstacle. You can do that with no problems at all. Just not as a charge-action.
Guy on a horse wants to charge with a lance at some guy 60 feet away but there's a fence between him and his target. Ok, no charge. His horse runs up and hops over the fence and then the guy takes an attack when he gets within range. Attack is rolled, damage is rolled, but no spirited charge or double-lance damage for you. Catch the guy out in a field or somewhere where there isn't an obstacle, and you can make a charge without interruptions and get your spirited charge on.
Just because people moved in a strait line and attacked in history doesn't mean they were preforming a D&D charge maneuver anymore than swinging a sword means you're a 5th level Fighter.
If I am not mistaken, you need to take a penalty on acrobatics checks if you want to perform them with out hindering your movement. This extra cost to skill check seems reasonable for being able to ignore terrain obstetrical during a charge; however you got to jump really high to jump over an entire person on a level ground to you.
|
|
If I am not mistaken, you need to take a penalty on acrobatics checks if you want to perform them with out hindering your movement. This extra cost to skill check seems reasonable for being able to ignore terrain obstetrical during a charge; however you got to jump really high to jump over an entire person on a level ground to you.
I believe that's just for the "tumble" usage.
Allies don't block YOUR movement either, because they can let you pass. But notice they still count as an obstacle. And yes, it does block your movement. You're just avoiding it by turning that straight line into the curve of a jump. Hell, a brick wall doesn't block if I use my curvy movement to go around it. But it doesn't work that way. You can try to twist it any way you want, but you're wrong.
Allies are called out specifically because they are something that doesn't block your movement. And they don't count as an obstacle, they count as creature in one of the squares you are passing through.
And by the rest are you saying if there is a slight rise in the ground that you can no longer charge, as that is no longer a straight line? That the presence of a curb blocks all charging?
It's fine suggesting I'm wrong, but without something to back it up, it seems spiteful.
I've already backed it up with copied and pasted rules. I'm sorry if you're taking my debunking of your rules-bending as spiteful, but it's not. I'm just wondering if it's possible to make you see reason, because from the start you seemed to assume that RAW agrees with you 100%.
Look, it works like this. You draw a straight line. Is there something in the path of that straight line that would either slow you down or make you deviate from the path in any form? If yes, then you can't charge. Just because you're jumping over it doesn't make it suddenly non-existent. That jump is a deviation from your charge. Using your theory here, we could just say that I move around the object in the same curved arc you're using to jump over it. As long as I use acrobatics to tumble my way through that is.
Again, not trying to be spiteful, but it's pretty clear to me at least that your jumping charge is in no way valid by RAW.
It seems to me that a big part of the "can you charge if you have to jump over an obstacle?" question is what is the definition of obstacle. The word is used in RAW but not defined.
A) If something could restrict any form of movement it is an obstacle to movement and so prevents charging (unless specifically excepted, like flying)
or
B) If something can be avoided through use of a movement modifier, like jumping or flying, then it isn't an obstacle to that specific move and so does not restrict the charge.
Personally, I am more in the B camp. But it doesn't say which is right in RAW, so there isn't a right RAW answer.
Sean Mahoney
Having the means to jump over something does not make it into a non-obstacle. As an example if I can jump high enough to clear a hurdle that does not mean that hurdle is not an obstacle. It is just one I can clear. The issue with charging is that it states the presence of the obstacle alone stops the charge. It does not say if you can bypass the obstacle you can still charge.
In my mind, the "straight line" rule is to avoid charges that break momentum to avoid obstacles. Jumping does not do that. It preserves momentum when avoiding obstacles, so it's fine in my camp.
According to the rules bypassing an obstacle takes up 2 squares of movement minimum. That would slow the charger down and therefore deny the charge. I posted about it upthread.
I've already backed it up with copied and pasted rules. I'm sorry if you're taking my debunking of your rules-bending as spiteful, but it's not. I'm just wondering if it's possible to make you see reason, because from the start you seemed to assume that RAW agrees with you 100%.
Look, it works like this. You draw a straight line. Is there something in the path of that straight line that would either slow you down or make you deviate from the path in any form? If yes, then you can't charge. Just because you're jumping over it doesn't make it suddenly non-existent. That jump is a deviation from your charge. Using your theory here, we could just say that I move around the object in the same curved arc you're using to jump over it. As long as I use acrobatics to tumble my way through that is.
Again, not trying to be spiteful, but it's pretty clear to me at least that your jumping charge is in no way valid by RAW.
The bolded part is the bit I don't see represented in the rules, which is why I think it's jumping is a legal part of a charge. Where do you see that the jump is a deviation?
Related question: Can you jump when in difficult terrain? I didn't know jumping was a free action, I always thought it was part of a single move action. So what happens in this situation?
I have a non-monk PC with a +10 acrobatics with a speed of 30'. In front of him is 60' of difficult terrain. With a running start, on average he can jump 20'. Without a running start on average he can jump 10'.
Does this mean he can ignore the entire difficult terrain by using jump actions to jump over the entire thing? I suppose he would take a +5 DC penalty, but that just means he takes more small jumps to make it across. As long as you can jump 5', if you have unlimited jumps you should be able to do many small jumps and completely circumvent the difficult terrain.
Is this right?
Related question: Can you jump when in difficult terrain? I didn't know jumping was a free action, I always thought it was part of a single move action. So what happens in this situation?
I have a non-monk PC with a +10 acrobatics with a speed of 30'. In front of him is 60' of difficult terrain. With a running start, on average he can jump 20'. Without a running start on average he can jump 10'.
Does this mean he can ignore the entire difficult terrain by using jump actions to jump over the entire thing? I suppose he would take a +5 DC penalty, but that just means he takes more small jumps to make it across. As long as you can jump 5', if you have unlimited jumps you should be able to do many small jumps and completely circumvent the difficult terrain.
Is this right?
I think you use the running start for each jump. Wouldn't that be a lot of force on your legs to do the jumping imediately again and be more difficult.
|
|
Related question: Can you jump when in difficult terrain? I didn't know jumping was a free action, I always thought it was part of a single move action. So what happens in this situation?
It's not so much a 'free action' as it is 'part of an action involving movement', if that makes sense. Assuming it's a 'free action' is what causes the 'relativistic jumping speeds' nonsense up-thread. So you can jump as part of a move action, a run action, a charge action, a spring attack action, or even a 5ft step - and in each case your maximum distance, no matter your result on the Acrobatics check, is the distance you could normally move on such an action.
I have a non-monk PC with a +10 acrobatics with a speed of 30'. In front of him is 60' of difficult terrain. With a running start, on average he can jump 20'. Without a running start on average he can jump 10'.
Does this mean he can ignore the entire difficult terrain by using jump actions to jump over the entire thing? I suppose he would take a +5 DC penalty, but that just means he takes more small jumps to make it across. As long as you can jump 5', if you have unlimited jumps you should be able to do many small jumps and completely circumvent the difficult terrain.
Is this right?
The first bit is easy: assuming he starts 10ft back from the difficult terrain he moves that 10ft (for a 'running start') then jumps his 20ft across. That's 30ft of movement, at which point he's landed in difficult terrain...
... Now comes the tricky part. He's 20ft into the difficult terrain, and has 40ft to go. Since he's already in the difficult terrain (he's landed) he can't be using the 'run' full-round action, so he can only move another 30ft at most (by using his standard action as a second move action). He'll take penalties to his Acrobatics checks for the difficult terrain he's taking off from, but the real question is whether or not he needs to use two squares of movement per square jumped across, because he's starting in difficult terrain, or whether the fact he's airborn means he can ignore the difficult terrain. As far as I know, the rules are silent on this one... and I can see arguments either way.
So we have two options:
a) he needs to spend two squares per one, as per normal for difficult terrain. This option makes jumping pointless in this situation (apart from the initial 'boost' as he leapt in from clear ground).
or...
b) the jumping takes the penalty to the Skill roll, but allows the guy to otherwise ignore the difficult terrain penalty. This option makes jumping far too good, because there's no real penalty for a low roll (just a lower distance covered) and you can just keep making rolls until you hit your maximum distance - essentially meaning anyone can simply ignore difficult terrain penalties via 'hopping across'.
then there's secret hidden option...
c) failing the Acrobatics check at a minimal level incurs other penalties - generally meaning you go prone. This option uses the fact that Acrobatics is now a unified Skill, and combines the attempt to jump with the rules for balancing on uneven surfaces... but is completely into house rule territory.
I guess the simple answer is ask your players 'how much do you like wire-fu?', and to rule appropriately... ;)
Stuff
Thanks for discussing this.
With (c), this is assuming he can even fail with the minimum penalty (DC 5). Once a skill gets high enough, it's impossible to fail, in this case to jump only 5' (or less depending on how the GM wants to rule it).
The answer is challenging, but I think if you're jumping in difficult terrain, it makes sense to me to penalize them an extra 5' of movement, in addition to the jump itself. This way they can't ignore the difficult terrain by jumping and it penalizes jumpers who can't jump far.
I'd be interested in an official ruling though, if it exists.
It's not so much a 'free action' as it is 'part of an action involving movement', if that makes sense.
Sadly, this is incorrect. It's actually just part of another action. Doesn't specify. It can be any action. If you talk (a free action) you can jump, as written. Is it dumb? I think so. Is it correct? Yes. At least until it gets some errata.
It didn't work this way in 3.5. Here is the 3.5 rules for jumping.
Action
None. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. If you run out of movement mid-jump, your next action (either on this turn or, if necessary, on your next turn) must be a move action to complete the jump.
Bag of Awesome
You win the Interwebz. That was great.
And RAW to boot!
Bag of AwesomeYou win the Interwebz. That was great.
And RAW to boot!
Haha, thanks ThatEvilGuy. Glad it amused you. ^.^
Remember...
Is Tiggers are wonderful things
Their tops are made out of rubber
The bottoms are made out of springs
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun
But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is
I'm the only one
The wonderful thing about Tiggers
Is Tiggers are wonderful chaps
They're loaded with vim and vigor
They love to leap in your laps
They're jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun
But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is
I'm the only one
Tiggers are cuddly fellows
Tiggers are awfully sweet
Everyone else is jealous
That's why I repeat
The wonderful thing about Tiggers
Is Tiggers are wonderful things
Their tops are made out of rubber
Their bottoms are made out of springs
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun
But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is
I'm the only one
IIIIIII'mmmmmm the only one!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr ! ! ! !"
Rule of Cool applies here.
Is jumping part of a charge cinematic? Yes. Is it thematic? Yes. Is it awesome to do a flying leap at an otherwise unreachable Orc and cleave their skull in twain? Yes. Does it add to the game and the fun of all gathered? Yes.
Rule of Cool.
I saw a game once where a tiger was charging at a PC, but the PC had a held action and cast Grease under the tiger. The GM ruled that -- without stopping the charge -- the tiger leaped out of the grease and ended up pouncing on the poor PC.
That might have been "cool" to the GM, but it seemed kind of dickish to me...
|
|
Sadly, this is incorrect. It's actually just part of another action. Doesn't specify. It can be any action. If you talk (a free action) you can jump, as written. Is it dumb? I think so. Is it correct? Yes. At least until it gets some errata.
What you're saying there is only 'correct' if you choose to read the Acrobatics Skill with a complete disconnect between the body of the text and the the 'Actions' section.
The body of the text clearly states, 'No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.'
If you choose to interpret that as meaning you can make a series of jumps up the your maximum running speed whilst using free actions off-turn to speak, then that's your call, I guess... but the intent is pretty clear, and I think adding a half page of text to the 'actions' section just to list every possible type of action which allows movement which jumping can be part of, as well as seperately list all the various possible actions which the other functions of Acrobatics could be used during, just to ward off potential abuse is pretty much the definition of 'rules bloat'. IMHO... YMMV...
|
|
Rule of Cool applies here.
Is jumping part of a charge cinematic? Yes. Is it thematic? Yes. Is it awesome to do a flying leap at an otherwise unreachable Orc and cleave their skull in twain? Yes. Does it add to the game and the fun of all gathered? Yes.
Rule of Cool.
I saw a game once where a tiger was charging at a PC, but the PC had a held action and cast Grease under the tiger. The GM ruled that -- without stopping the charge -- the tiger leaped out of the grease and ended up pouncing on the poor PC.
That might have been "cool" to the GM, but it seemed kind of dickish to me...
FWIW, I would have said that since he was already in the square that counted as difficult he couldn't use the "jump" trick to avoid it.