| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, somewhat related, does a running start require moving 10ft from your initial square? Or can you count your initial square as part of that 10ft?
That is a separate question! I'm only clarifying the PDT FAQ post here ;)
|
It gets you 20 feet of distance. Depending on exactly where you drew the gridlines compared to the point in space where your feet left the ground, you might move either 4 or 5 squares, exactly 20 feet of which is in the air.How many squares does an Acrobatics check of (20) get you?
I'm hoping the answer is still 4.
How do you get 5?
How do you get 5?It gets you 20 feet of distance. Depending on exactly where you drew the gridlines compared to the point in space where your feet left the ground, you might move either 4 or 5 squares, exactly 20 feet of which is in the air.How many squares does an Acrobatics check of (20) get you?
I'm hoping the answer is still 4.
If you place the exact point where your feet leave the ground as the exact far edge of your current square (call it square 0), you will land 20 feet away on the exact edge far edge between square 4 and square 5, thus allowing 4 or 5. This is the only edge case (literally, so pun intended) where you can go 5; however, it happens to correspond to the pit. All other times you would go 4.
Doesn't that mean that 3 is also possible?
Added: Because, if you can land between 4 and 5, and end in 5, it's also possible to land between 3 and 4, as well.
Didn't think of that, but yeah it would seem that if you jumped from the very near end of square 0, you could fall on the exact boundary of square 3 and 4. In any case, most jumps will not be over a featureless expanse, so you'll know what areas you are hoping to not walk over.
The acrobatics check is not a form of movement. It's made as part of normal movement to see if you can clear some distance by jumping. If you moved 3 squares you moved 25ft of movement (since you used the movement you would have done to go to square 5 to go back to square 3, 4 is 20ft of movement, and 5 is 25ft of movement, but the jump would be 20ft in all three.
Like people have been saying for many pages now, the alignment of the pit with any grid squares is irrelevantWell, that doesn't seem to be the case, if I'm understanding this correctly, because grid placement seems to impact whether you land 3, 4, or 5 squares away.
If you want to end in square 3 it's calculated the same as ending in square 5, just going the other direction. If you want to jump 20 and then end 15ft from your start you walk back the other 5ft. 2.5ft to back edge of square, jump 20ft and 2.5ft back to center of square 3, for a total of 25ft movement used.
EDIT: I think the best thing to help you is not counting the jump as it's own form of movement. It's just made as part of normal movement. Because the LANDING is always 20ft from the start of jump, regardless of where you movement ends.
|
|
Also, I suggest just letting Mark explain it, since we haven't convinced Nefreet in the last 800 posts.
I don't see this as a matter of convincing. I'm just trying to understand it. The FAQ was issued. The answer has been given. These questions revolve around that answer.
If someone asks me to explain this ruling, or asks about Acrobatics in general, I want to be able to answer them. We're both experienced PFS GMs, so I know you've been asked before to help new people with the rules.
If someone asks me how many squares they can jump when they roll a 20, I want to be able to accurately describe why there are 3 potential answers to their question.
|
The question I would like to see answered is what happens if I don't have 15ft of movement when I jump over the 10ft pit? Am under the impression that I cannot attempt the jump without enough movement to enter the final square.
By RAW that is true -- you cannot attempt the jump if you don't have enough movement to complete it.
I am very partial to a house rule that would allow you to complete the jump by borrowing against your next turn's movement.
|
|
If someone asks me how many squares they can jump when they roll a 20, I want to be able to accurately describe why there are 3 potential answers to their question.I believe this is the source of your mental block. It is irrelevant how many squares I can jump with 20ft. There only three relevant questions are:
1. How many feet is the gap I need to clear?
2. How many squares do I need to move?
3. Can I get a running start (affects the DC)?
There's no reason to ever answer the question of how many squares I can jump. Jumping is only concerned with the distance of the obstacle.
I strongly beg to differ.
Am I the only one that believes Acrobatics can simply be used to jump from one point to another?
Using the 3, 4, or 5 square answer, we're led to some really strange possibilities regarding larger creatures. Like, a Gargantuan creature can "jump" 20ft, and never actually leave its space.
I'm trying to figure out what happens with Colossal creatures.
Am I the only one that believes Acrobatics can simply be used to jump from one point to another?
I'd say, if you're in a situation where you're not bothered to account for the exact position of your feet within the 5' square you're occupying (which is most of the time), I see no reason why you can't just jump and land in another square, in the same state of positional apathy as you started out with. This is probably how you'd jump over pits if you could make the jump with a yawn and a take 1.
Okay.
So, whether you're jumping 3 squares, or 4, or 5, the total movement you've used is 20ft?
So, a regular Human could still progress another 2 squares, in addition to the 3, 4, or 5 that they jumped?
yes because you spent 2.5 feet moving back and then another 2.5 going back to the center of a square, you basically moved back and forth a full 5 feet.
blue is air time, red is wasted movement, orange is normal movement.
Yeah, wonder if we can hit 1600 explaining the explanation to Nefreet. ;)
I'm afraid to find out. Glad of the way the FAQ came out, uninterested in dragging the dead horse along anymore, especially after the beating it's already taken. /sarcasm
|
|
Am I the only one that believes Acrobatics can simply be used to jump from one point to another?If you mean 'without spending movement' then I believe so, friend.
I've even NEVER implied as much.
Jumping is a thing.
It's not teleporting.
Jumping. Like, crouching down, and extending your legs rapidly.
Jumping.
Edit: that was really the worst typo I could have written.
Can we get an update to the "The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It" thread?
Is a question with more FAQ-clicks more likely to be answered?
No. The staff can see that some posts have a lot of FAQ flags,but the staff also evaluates the complexity of the question, how much impact the answer has on player characters, and other factors.Just because someone managed to rally a lot of support about a particular question doesn't mean it's the most important, urgent, or relevant question.
In other words, sometimes it’s better or more efficient for the staff to answer a questionwith fewer FAQ flags than onewith many FAQ flags.I'm not trying to be ungrateful to the paizo staff here, but I find the fact that this thread resulted in a quick FAQ deliciously ironic, where there was basically a single individual unswayed by the overwhelming general consensus.
How about a FAQ for some of the (IMHO) more troublesome rules elements:
1) the effects of status conditions of action economy
2) an update to weapon "metaphysical hands", particularly when changing weapons in the middle of an attack routine
3) passive perception checks versus ambush; what can prevent taking 10 in general
This wouldn't have gotten a FAQ if it wasn't considered so easy by the PDT (making it a perfect twofer, since we already had scheduled and implemented a more relevant FAQ for today). So in that sense, "the complexity of the question" was also important.
Yeah, wonder if we can hit 1600 explaining the explanation to Nefreet. ;)I'm afraid to find out. Glad of the way the FAQ came out, uninterested in dragging the dead horse along anymore, especially after the beating it's already taken. /sarcasm
Thank you good wolf, it has been a rough one
Thank you good wolf, it has been a rough oneYeah, wonder if we can hit 1600 explaining the explanation to Nefreet. ;)I'm afraid to find out. Glad of the way the FAQ came out, uninterested in dragging the dead horse along anymore, especially after the beating it's already taken. /sarcasm
Thank you for your timely entrance to this thread.
|
|
Just to sum up the events so far, because I can hear the eyes rolling here (it sounds much like dice on a table):
- There was a legitimate FAQ request asking for one of 3 possible answers.
- This wasn't a "one against many" argument, there was a sufficient following of all 3 possibilities.
- Several people, including myself, evolved their opinions as new evidence was presented.
- The FAQ was answered.
- I asked to clarify one implication of the FAQ, expecting a certain answer.
<up until this point, everything was fine>
- Mark gives an answer I did not expect, and still do not understand.
- Just when I thought I was understanding everything people were saying, I'm hit by a Mack Truck of confusion.
- People assume I'm beating a Dead Horse.
I want to make it clear that this 3/4/5 square "thing" is new.
If this has been how everyone else understood it, before the FAQ, then you'd think it would have been revealed over the course of 800 posts.
Right?
So, can someone explain this new aspect of the rules to me, without being petty or insulting?
Because it makes no sense to me. At least, before, I understood the other arguments. This I don't.
|
I want to make it clear that this 3/4/5 square "thing" is new.
If this has been how everyone else understood it, before the FAQ, then you'd think it would have been revealed over the course of 800 posts.
Right?
So, can someone explain this new aspect of the rules to me, without being petty or insulting?
The 3 square result only happens if the character includes the square they are in as part of the jump. That would be jumping from the side of square zero furthest from the end point, meaning you count the 5ft of that square plus squares 1, 2, and 3. 20ft total, and you end on the edge of 3 and 4, picking which one to move into.
Like people have been saying for many pages now, the alignment of the pit with any grid squares is irrelevantWell, that doesn't seem to be the case, if I'm understanding this correctly, because grid placement seems to impact whether you land 3, 4, or 5 squares away.If you want to end in square 3 it's calculated the same as ending in square 5, just going the other direction. If you want to jump 20 and then end 15ft from your start you walk back the other 5ft. 2.5ft to back edge of square, jump 20ft and 2.5ft back to center of square 3, for a total of 25ft movement used.
EDIT: I think the best thing to help you is not counting the jump as it's own form of movement. It's just made as part of normal movement. Because the LANDING is always 20ft from the start of jump, regardless of where you movement ends.
Okay.
So, whether you're jumping 3 squares, or 4, or 5, the total movement you've used is 20ft?
So, a regular Human could still progress another 2 squares, in addition to the 3, 4, or 5 that they jumped?
It's like Chess said. You're essentially usually a boundary condition to land on an edge after jumping 20 feet and then move, without jumping, another "delta" feet in order to move a total of "20+delta" or "20-delta" feet, where delta is a tiny number that approaches 0 and only exists for the purpose of turning a continuous function into a piecewise defined function. So in order to jump 20 feet and be in the 5 position, you have also committed another 5 feet of movement that isn't jumping for a total of 25 feet of movement, leaving a typical human 5 feet (if you didn't have enough movement to do that, like a gnome, you have no choice but to go 4 squares, and that applies to the pit too; if you don't have the movement to get to the square past the pit, you still fall in). As TOZ says, the 3 squares only occurs when you consider your jump to include your origin square. This may be relevant if your origin square contains a feature you also want to jump over.
|
|
when you are figuring out jumping, ignore squares. They don't exist, don't even think about them. Just take the width of the pit and use that as the DC. Period. That's all you need for jumping.
I feel the need to point out, again, that imagining no grid, is something I've supported this whole time.
But, as a practical example, since tactical movement, in combat, does require squares, imagine this:
There is some 20ft chasm. You're on one side, the enemy is on the other.
This 20ft pit, somehow, has 3, 4, and 5 square width sections.
Is it of everyone's belief that I can jump across, at any point, and land adjacent to my opponent?
I feel this example is the most common usage, beyond just wanting to have a jumping contest.
Alrighty, Mark. I'll ruminate over that.
So, it sounds like 4 is the answer, 99% of the time, and 3 or 5 is for... Weird times.
I'm fine with that.
In fact, if the grid lines were drawn randomly at any point of the pit, 4 would be the answer 99.999999999% of the time (you walk out into the partial land and partial pit square until you hit the pit, then jump, thus clearly and unconfusingly moving a total of 5 squares while jumping the other 4 of them, for 20 feet). But the grid lines are generally, in pre-published maps and homebrewed maps alike, drawn non-randomly, such that they line up exactly with the pit, and whenever that occurs, it winds up putting you into the edge condition.