|
Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.
There is no problem with where the pit lies on the grid. None whatsoever. Grid lines don't magically change the distance traveled.
I even covered this earlier without any grid lines at all.
Everything's an abstraction. Our characters don't see grid lines. They only exist to make the game easier, not harder.
Just for clarification:
Does anyone disagree that a person who is said to have jumped 10' in the real world can be assumed to have jumped the same distance as someone who is said to have jumped 10' in a Pathfinder world?
|
|
Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.let's not forget the 5ft diameter hole that requires a DC 15 to jump diagonally and DC 10 to jump straight.
I covered this as well.
|
|
Guess we know how to keep those giants at bay, 5' wide ditch and some rubble. I find it also quite amusing that he seems to think his method is the 'simple' method, and everyone else using DC = distance of pit is mathematically complex.
And I find it quite amusing that you think your "I subtract 5 from the DC and float" method is the "simple" method.
Further arguing that a colossal creature is held at bay by a 5ft pit would be nonsense in any other thread.
I covered this as well.Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.let's not forget the 5ft diameter hole that requires a DC 15 to jump diagonally and DC 10 to jump straight.
wait so you're saying it isn't a DC of 15 to jump diagonally 2 squares?
Guess we know how to keep those giants at bay, 5' wide ditch and some rubble. I find it also quite amusing that he seems to think his method is the 'simple' method, and everyone else using DC = distance of pit is mathematically complex.And I find it quite amusing that you think your "I subtract 5 from the DC and float" method is the "simple" method.
Further arguing that a colossal creature is held at bay by a 5ft pit would be nonsense in any other thread.
you explicitly ignored my post on how no floating was involved, but keep bringing it up...
|
|
Just for clarification:
Does anyone disagree that a person who is said to have jumped 10' in the real world can be assumed to have jumped the same distance as someone who is said to have jumped 10' in a Pathfinder world?
People disagree on that, as well. It's already been covered in this thread.
Apparently jumping 10ft in the real world is equally as debated.
Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.There is no problem with where the pit lies on the grid. None whatsoever. Grid lines don't magically change the distance traveled.
I even covered this earlier without any grid lines at all.
Everything's an abstraction. Our characters don't see grid lines. They only exist to make the game easier, not harder.
So whats the DC for the second example?
|
|
wait so you're saying it isn't a DC of 15 to jump diagonally 2 squares?I covered this as well.Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.let's not forget the 5ft diameter hole that requires a DC 15 to jump diagonally and DC 10 to jump straight.
Get the grid out of your head. I don't know how many times I've said this, now.
Search my recent comments for the word "diagonal".
|
|
No, it damn well is not.Just for clarification:
Does anyone disagree that a person who is said to have jumped 10' in the real world can be assumed to have jumped the same distance as someone who is said to have jumped 10' in a Pathfinder world?
People disagree on that, as well. It's already been covered in this thread.
Apparently jumping 10ft in the real world is equally as debated.
If you have time to search for the comments on the matter, you'll see that it is.
It's like this discussion is only 24hrs old or something.
What part of my summation of your side was incorrect?What part of my summation of your side was incorrect?And in this example it explicitly contradicts the rules. Why is that?That's the answer I've been giving consistently this whole time (when answering using the 5ft paradigm).You don't round up or down, you simply determine which DC you met.
A 17ft jump meets the 15 DC.
You'd land 3 squares from your starting point.
If the pit you were trying to jump was 3 squares long, you'd fall in, assuming you failed your Reflex save to grab hold of the ledge.
It contradicts how you believe the rule works, since you believe the DC = Obstacle
It does not contradict how I believe rule works, since I believe the DC = Distance
Nefreet, please stop misrepresenting our stance. It's not very pleasant, it causes more confusion, and it shows you're not trying to understand our position (regardless of if you actually are or not).
We both believe the DC = The distance to be crossed. I don't know if you've ever once summed up our position by saying this, but we've never said otherwise.
We believe that you only need to cross the actual distance of the "obstacle" needing to be crossed, since the obstacle is what you're crossing.
You believe that the distance to be crossed is not the distance of the obstacle in the way that you need to cross, but that the distance needed cross is the distance to move to the square after the obstacle that you needed to cross.Hilariously, much like you believe I'm misrepresenting your argument, I believe you are misrepresenting mine.
Are we both not listening to each other?
Nefreet, are you ignoring this because I did get your view correct?
Just for clarification:
Does anyone disagree that a person who is said to have jumped 10' in the real world can be assumed to have jumped the same distance as someone who is said to have jumped 10' in a Pathfinder world?
People disagree on that, as well. It's already been covered in this thread.
Apparently jumping 10ft in the real world is equally as debated.
Such claims cannot stand without proof, and the burden of proof is upon he who makes the claim. I'm not going to search for it.
And by the way, if you mean the misguided ideas posted in this very topic (I have seen those), that's not proof that the measuring of jumping distance in the real world is debated, that's just proof that some people are confused about the real world.
Why do you constantly ignore questions that demonstrate the issue with your method?
What is the DC for a huge creature to jump a 10 foot pit?
He's said
A large creature would need a DC 30 to jump a 20 ft chasm.
A huge creature would need a DC 35 to jump a 20 ft chasm. That is assuming a Large+ creature needed to land in all of its squares.Of that requirement, I am not sure. Large creatures can squeeze in a 5ft space, and Huge creatures can squeeze in 10ft. I am unsure how that would impact their ability to land a jump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread reminds me of those religious forums, like say, on an atheism form when some religious guy starts a post war and then everyone gangs up on him but he keeps posting and posting and posting.
And, just like those religious forum wars, nobody ever changes their mind and it's all for nothing.
Carry on!
Guess we know how to keep those giants at bay, 5' wide ditch and some rubble. I find it also quite amusing that he seems to think his method is the 'simple' method, and everyone else using DC = distance of pit is mathematically complex.And I find it quite amusing that you think your "I subtract 5 from the DC and float" method is the "simple" method.
Further arguing that a colossal creature is held at bay by a 5ft pit would be nonsense in any other thread.
Both are simple. It's just DC = distance jumped. It's just that one camp thinks it's "distance of the terrain bypassed" and the other think it's "distance to be fully on the other side".
I have no problem with your mocking the idea that you just float on the other side (although I disagree that that would happen :-)). Saying that the other (my) camp is subtracting 5 from the DC is silly. At worst, we're failing to add an important 5 to the distance. And even if I'm wrong, less adding is simpler...
|
|
I have to go to work.
Over the course of these last several pages (though really since the beginning) I've been asked the same questions over and over. It's getting rather frustrating. Rather than me going back and linking or quoting myself every time, how about this:
If you have a question for me that you think I haven't answered, you have two options: search my posts for keywords, or go back and read through this thread.
I get that this is a big thread, but honestly, if you feel you have a question that hasn't been answered, odds are that you just haven't been keeping up. Only once was I not consistent with my answers, and I caught the error after a few posts.
Take the time, now, to go back through this thread. I guarantee it will answer any questions you may have.
This thread reminds me of those religious forums, like say, on an atheism form when some religious guy starts a post war and then everyone gangs up on him but he keeps posting and posting and posting.
And, just like those religious forum wars, nobody ever changes their mind and it's all for nothing.
Carry on!
We've had one convert to the church of the holy equals sign.
|
|
In an earlier post, he suggested that squeezing would double the 'distance' and thus the DC for the space past the pit. That's the N* from my previous post.Why do you constantly ignore questions that demonstrate the issue with your method?
What is the DC for a huge creature to jump a 10 foot pit?
He's said
A large creature would need a DC 30 to jump a 20 ft chasm.
A huge creature would need a DC 35 to jump a 20 ft chasm. That is assuming a Large+ creature needed to land in all of its squares.Of that requirement, I am not sure. Large creatures can squeeze in a 5ft space, and Huge creatures can squeeze in 10ft. I am unsure how that would impact their ability to land a jump.
No, I did not.
I have to go to work.
Over the course of these last several pages (though really since the beginning) I've been asked the same questions over and over. It's getting rather frustrating. Rather than me going back and linking or quoting myself every time, how about this:
If you have a question for me that you think I haven't answered, you have two options: search my posts for keywords, or go back and read through this thread.
I get that this is a big thread, but honestly, if you feel you have a question that hasn't been answered, odds are that you just haven't been keeping up. Only once was I not consistent with my answers, and I caught the error after a few posts.
Take the time, now, to go back through this thread. I guarantee it will answer any questions you may have.
Here's a question I know you haven't answered yet, "What part of my summation of your side was incorrect?"
|
|
Nefreet, without the grid, what's your justification for requiring movement in 5 ft increments?
Last reply, and then I really have to take off.
I've stated recently that I'm open to using 1ft increments in place of 5ft increments.
But that really doesn't change anything.
You still need to jump from point A, and land in point B.
Acrobatics describes this as "distance traveled".
If you have a 10ft pit, jumping 10ft only lands you in the pit.
You're going to need to jump over the pit.
If you're using 1ft increments, that means 11ft of distance.
If you're using 5ft increments, that means 15ft of distance.
Grid or no grid. You have to land somewhere.
Why do you constantly ignore questions that demonstrate the issue with your method?
What is the DC for a huge creature to jump a 10 foot pit?
He's said
A large creature would need a DC 30 to jump a 20 ft chasm.
A huge creature would need a DC 35 to jump a 20 ft chasm. That is assuming a Large+ creature needed to land in all of its squares.Of that requirement, I am not sure. Large creatures can squeeze in a 5ft space, and Huge creatures can squeeze in 10ft. I am unsure how that would impact their ability to land a jump.
Just to put this into perspective.
Let's take a large creature and follow the implications of the suggested DC. Let's take an ogre for example.
How much bigger are ogre feet than human feet? Twice as big? Certainly not a lot bigger than that, they're only 10' tall on average.
So this ogre, because he conceivably has to initiate his jump a couple of inches further away from the edge of the pit, he has to jump 60 inches further to clear the pit. That doesn't feel right. This interpretation of the jumping rules goes wildly awry at a scale that's hardly even double the baseline scale of medium creatures. Perhaps that's because this interpretation of the rules isn't correct. It's certainly not workable. If it is correct, I want something better.
No, I did not.In an earlier post, he suggested that squeezing would double the 'distance' and thus the DC for the space past the pit. That's the N* from my previous post.Why do you constantly ignore questions that demonstrate the issue with your method?
What is the DC for a huge creature to jump a 10 foot pit?
He's said
A large creature would need a DC 30 to jump a 20 ft chasm.
A huge creature would need a DC 35 to jump a 20 ft chasm. That is assuming a Large+ creature needed to land in all of its squares.Of that requirement, I am not sure. Large creatures can squeeze in a 5ft space, and Huge creatures can squeeze in 10ft. I am unsure how that would impact their ability to land a jump.
I think you did.
But what if the 10ft pit is between squares, so that you only traverse 2 squares to jump the pit? like in this [lp][P][pl] that's a 10 foot pit, but the distance per squares is only 2, is it now a dc10 jump?I answered your question. Why don't you answer mine? How many squares did he move if he rolled a 17?Sorry, I'm not falling into that trap again.The last time you "fell into this trap" you didn't answer in a manner aligned with the rest of the argument. You went to some strange view that the 7ft pit wasn't part of the grid and thus you only needed to add 5ft to the pit's width. We then asked you, and continue to ask, using a grid with squares, if you start in square A and travel 30ft to square B and there's a (7,17, 19)ft pit that I jump over, what's the DC to jump over that pit?
This is the question we were/are trying to see how you answer and you refuse to answer it in this context, and the time you "answered it" you made up some strange, non-actual game scenario to answer with.My answer to that previous question aligned with the same answer I've been giving this whole time.
Distance = DC
If you start in square A and travel 30ft to square B and there's a (10)ft pit that I jump over, the DC would be 15.
That DC of 15 includes the 10ft pit and the 5ft square you land in.
15ft was traversed from the start of your jump to the end of your jump.
According to the graphic supplied earlier, it would still be DC 15.
10ft pit + (2.5ft x 2)
Since the 2.5ft is doubled, due to squeezing.
I had never considered that before, but it aligns with the evidence other people are providing.
Nefreet, without the grid, what's your justification for requiring movement in 5 ft increments?Last reply, and then I really have to take off.
I've stated recently that I'm open to using 1ft increments in place of 5ft increments.
But that really doesn't change anything.
You still need to jump from point A, and land in point B.
Acrobatics describes this as "distance traveled".
If you have a 10ft pit, jumping 10ft only lands you in the pit.
You're going to need to jump over the pit.
If you're using 1ft increments, that means 11ft of distance.
If you're using 5ft increments, that means 15ft of distance.
Grid or no grid. You have to land somewhere.
Jumping is measuring the distance you cleared with your jump. if you jumped 10ft from the starting line, then the 10ft is from the edge of the line to the closest edge of what landed. So jumping 10ft means my entire body has cleared 10ft.
wait so you're saying it isn't a DC of 15 to jump diagonally 2 squares?I covered this as well.Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.let's not forget the 5ft diameter hole that requires a DC 15 to jump diagonally and DC 10 to jump straight.Get the grid out of your head. I don't know how many times I've said this, now.
Search my recent comments for the word "diagonal".
We can't ignore the grid squares. Your entire argument is based on the movement distance required by the mechanical construct of grid squares.
|
I wonder if taking the "jumping" part out of the equation would make the issue more clear.
Let's say someone is standing in the square adjacent to an area of grease. They move to the square directly opposite the greased area, a move of fifteen feet (through ten feet of grease).
How many Acrobatics checks to avoid slipping are required for this move, and why?
Now replace the grease with a ten foot pit. How many squares are you jumping over?
We can't ignore the grid squares. Your entire argument is based on the movement distance required by the mechanical construct of grid squares.wait so you're saying it isn't a DC of 15 to jump diagonally 2 squares?I covered this as well.Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.let's not forget the 5ft diameter hole that requires a DC 15 to jump diagonally and DC 10 to jump straight.Get the grid out of your head. I don't know how many times I've said this, now.
Search my recent comments for the word "diagonal".
Nefreet has recently started entertaining what he calls "the 1-foot paradigm" (DC = gap +1) as a viable solution, rather than the "5-foot paradigm" (DC = distance moved), which allows him to ignore the grid. Unfortunately most of us missed the memo (I still haven't found it). On the plus side, we are now simply arguing whether DC = gap or DC = gap + 1, on the negative side approximately 500 posts of this thread can now be safely ignored because the person arguing DC = distance moved isn't actually arguing that any longer.
Please note that I am concerned that while Nefreet is answering many current posts using DC = gap +1, he still holds that DC = distance moved is a valid solution to the question, and may find himself in a position to answer by confusion, since he has created a situation where he is espousing two separate and incompatible solutions and isn't always clear which version he's using for his answer.
We can't ignore the grid squares. Your entire argument is based on the movement distance required by the mechanical construct of grid squares.wait so you're saying it isn't a DC of 15 to jump diagonally 2 squares?I covered this as well.Nefreet the problem with your interpretation is that it seems arbitrary based on where a pit falls in relation to squares. If a pit is placed in such a way that it fits a in a 2x2 square arangement exactly it would take a DC 15 check to jump but if it straddles 6 squares by resting in the middle of the outer sides them even though more squares have a pit the jump DC is now 10 since I have moved 2 squares and thus am in a safe square.let's not forget the 5ft diameter hole that requires a DC 15 to jump diagonally and DC 10 to jump straight.Get the grid out of your head. I don't know how many times I've said this, now.
Search my recent comments for the word "diagonal".
Nefreet has recently started entertaining what he calls "the 1-foot paradigm" (DC = gap +1) as a viable solution, rather than the "5-foot paradigm" (DC = distance moved), which allows him to ignore the grid. Unfortunately most of us missed the memo (I still haven't found it). On the plus side, we are now simply arguing whether DC = gap or DC = gap + 1, on the negative side approximately 500 posts of this thread can now be safely ignored because the person arguing DC = distance moved isn't actually arguing that any longer.
Please note that I am concerned that while Nefreet is answering many current posts using DC = gap +1, he still holds that DC = distance moved is a valid solution to the question, and may find himself in a position to answer by confusion, since he has created a situation where he is espousing two separate and incompatible solutions and isn't always clear which version he's using for his answer.
Well we've got him down by 4 - only one to go and we're golden :)
Nefreet has recently started entertaining what he calls "the 1-foot paradigm" (DC = gap +1) as a viable solution, rather than the "5-foot paradigm" (DC = distance moved), which allows him to ignore the grid. Unfortunately most of us missed the memo (I still haven't found it). On the plus side, we are now simply arguing whether DC = gap or DC = gap + 1, on the negative side approximately 500 posts of this thread can now be safely ignored because the person arguing DC = distance moved isn't actually arguing that any longer.Please note that I am concerned that while Nefreet is answering many current posts using DC = gap +1, he still holds that DC = distance moved is a valid solution to the question, and may find himself in a position to answer by confusion, since he has created a situation where he is espousing two separate and incompatible solutions and isn't always clear which version he's using for his answer.
I saw he'd made an allowance for that possibility, in which case he should address my very first post in this thread. The DC is the distance, not the distance + 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think the DC for a 10' pit is 10 or 11, then you are probably close enough to claim table variance.
If you choose DC 10, then you feel that the DC = Distance of the gap. So that works.
If you choose DC 11, then you feel that the DC = Distance you move during the jump. So that works too.
I still go with the former, but with the wording I can't really claim either as illogical.
Now, the idea that a 10' gap requires another +5 to the DC for landing and even larger numbers for bigger creatures, that doesn't follow logic, it just follows squares.
So in my opinion, Nefreet has come a long way in his logic.
It will be really funny when the FAQ gets answered and it turns out he was right all along.
Just sayin'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It all comes down to poorly written rules:
The base DC to make a jump is equal to the distance to be crossed (if horizontal).
and
..the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump...
Do not mean the same thing. That is the crux of the +1 argument. The former is clearly a toe-to-heel type of measurement. The latter is also clearly a toe-to-toe measurement, which therefore requires a +1' or something so that a character does not fail to clear the gap.
This isn't the first rule to require a FAQ due to poor wording. I would suggest a table choose which part of the rule to give more credence to and wait for official clarification.