| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no DC, and there is no pit.
After printing out all of these posts, and using the paper to fill the pit, I no longer have to make a check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, I just noticed something. You need a 10' running start for a vertical jump as well? I can see the running start for clearing a high obstacle, you jump vertically and let your momentum take you over, but I don't think there is any advantage to a running start if you're simply trying to maximize your vertical reach.
I certainly can't jump twice as high with a running start, compared to just squatting and launching upwards. Anyone else?
have you watched high jumpers? Running helps you covert that movement upwards
For someone who has repeatedly said to ignore the squares, why do you keep getting hung up on them?
Separate the length of the jump from the tactical movement required to traverse that jump. In this context they are very literally not the same thing.
If you are leaping an obstacle the DC is the distance of the obstacle, but the needs of tactical movement means you may need to 'run on' a little into the following square.
If it is a simple "Jump the Furthest", then the need for tactical movement seems unnecessary. Highest wins.
In regards to a 20' jump covering 3-5 squares - I can't think of a situation where a 15' jump wouldn't do the same job as a hypothetical 3 square 20' jump. A straight jump without fear of hitting an obstacle is 4 squares. It technically isn't ever 5 squares. The need to cover 5 squares of tactical movement to get to a safe square IS NOT the distance of the jump.
Actually yes I can think of one 3 square 20' jump, but it is very Prince of Persia. W=wall, x=pit, S=start, L=land. I'm not even sure it's possible to successfully do this in PF though.
WSxxLW
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quick! Somebody lock this thread before anything else happens!
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.
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.
I think this is adequate. I might even suppose this is how you get the 10 feet space before you jump. (running from the back edge of your square, thus spending an extra 5 feet)
have you watched high jumpers? Running helps you covert that movement upwardsWait, I just noticed something. You need a 10' running start for a vertical jump as well? I can see the running start for clearing a high obstacle, you jump vertically and let your momentum take you over, but I don't think there is any advantage to a running start if you're simply trying to maximize your vertical reach.
I certainly can't jump twice as high with a running start, compared to just squatting and launching upwards. Anyone else?
I mentioned that in my post. Running helps the jumper travel over the bar, so the jumper can focus all of the jumping energy upwards and let the running momentum carry them over the bar.
Think about jumping up to grab a branch on a tree. Can you really jump twice as high if you get a running start? I sure can't.
it miakes more sense when you think of your leg as a miniture pole, like the ones used in pole vaults.
your foot hits the ground at a sharp angle slightly bent, turning the forward momentum into stored energy, and then you straighten the leg, forcing your body to move upwards. converting some % of your forward momentum into upward momentum.
|
Honestly, I have less problem with the "hanging in the air until your next action" than with the default assumption that everyone comes to a complete stop (however fast they were running - or flying!) at the end of their turn and waits in place until their next turn.Just don't look down or catch an anvil.I'm with DungeonmasterCal, with the caveat that running out of movement could cause you to fall.In 3.5 You hung out in the air for a round if you ran out of movement.
That's a pretty-much-inevitable consequence of turn-based initiative. Tick-based systems can do a better job of representing movement, but have their own issues.
|
Honestly, I have less problem with the "hanging in the air until your next action" than with the default assumption that everyone comes to a complete stop (however fast they were running - or flying!) at the end of their turn and waits in place until their next turn.
You are overlooking probably the most important point; characters aren't "hanging in the air", or "waiting in place until their next turn", because no game time passes between the end of your turn in one round and the start of your turn in the next round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow! Step away for a day or two and look what happens. Awesome! :)
Meh, so I was wrong too. As was mentioned, there were two particular sentences that conflicted in Acrobatics' description and I was with Nefreet and others giving weight to the second one. Nice to have it answered officially either way. And probably best to ignore the second sentence there since it describes jumping as movement (hence the confusion between jumping as movement vs jumping as clearing an object during movement).
So this is a win/win as Paladins and armor-clad warriors everywhere cheer that they now have a chance against that 10-ft pit.
:)
Wow! Step away for a day or two and look what happens. Awesome! :)
Meh, so I was wrong too. As was mentioned, there were two particular sentences that conflicted in Acrobatics' description and I was with Nefreet and others giving weight to the second one. Nice to have it answered officially either way. And probably best to ignore the second sentence there since it describes jumping as movement (hence the confusion between jumping as movement vs jumping as clearing an object during movement).
So this is a win/win as Paladins and armor-clad warriors everywhere cheer that they now have a chance against that 10-ft pit.
:)
Yes, I thought it might be a good idea to get a rewording of the second Acrobatics sentence?
How about just removing it all together?
"...No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round. For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump (and if the check fails, the distance at which you actually land and fall prone). Halve this result for a standing long jump to determine where you land."
The struck part is what has been throwing people off.
#1 I rolled a 20 so 20 feet of my movement is without touching the ground (or 10 feet if it was a standing jump).
#2 A 10-ft pit fills squares B and C.
#3a Making a standing jump from square A means I land in square C...which is over the pit.
#3b Or if you prefer, leaping from the West side of the line between squares A/B (where ground is), I land on the West side of the line between squares C/D (where ground isn't).
#4 I fall into pit.
The FAQ contradicts this. As the FAQ is correct, the wording needs to be changed or removed altogether.
It doesn't need changing. Acrobatics to Jump does not measure distances in 5' squares. Stop adding tactical movement and squares when dealing with the actual jump and it all makes sense.
#1 I rolled 20, so can leap 10' as a standing jump.
(#2 shouldn't exist in this context)
new #2 I jump from 1 edge of the 10' pit to the other -yay me!
If this is in combat and tactical movement is an issue, then it becomes:
#1 I rolled a 20, so can leap 10' as a standing jump.
#2 I stand at the edge of the pit, and jump 10'.
#3 I have to step forward a couple of feet to accommodate granular tactical movement and stop safely in square C - I have leapt 10' but moved 15'.
I'm not explaining how it works. The FAQ answers that. I'm explaining how many people have been thinking of it and why we were getting it wrong.
When I leap from the edge of a pit, my foot must push off from the small space of ground right before where the pit begins. And when I land, my foot must touch down on the small space of ground right after where the pit ends. Those two spaces are more than 10ft apart from each other because they include their own space in addition to the space the pit exists in. This is the same thinking implied in SKR's linked responses where he talked about a 10 being needed for a pit 5-9 feet wide. Think of it as:
Foot 1 (ground)
Feet 2-11 (pit), and
Foot 12 (ground).
Foot 1 (where you leap from) and Foot 12 (where you land) are 11 feet apart from each other.
The part I struck in the previous post suggests to many that the DC required would be 11 because it says your result reflects the distance you move in the jump (and you really need to move 11 feet in order to reach the ground on the other side of the pit). With the FAQ giving the official answer as 10, that struck section is no longer needed and is, in fact, misdirecting.
Why do you insist on measuring that way? You're implying that a body has no dimensions of its own.
When people try their damnedest to make such a jump across a pit, they'll have their center of gravity well over the pit and have a trailing foot that they use to initiate the jump. On the landing side, one or both legs will be well in front of their center of gravity, and they'll easily touch down on the other side. A trained athlete can probably clear a 10' pit with his center mass only travelling 9' in the air.
Simply put, people can add at least 3' (for the really clumsy) or as much as 5' (for the really athletic) to the distance their mass travels by just moving their legs the right way. In 5' square terms, you have 1 foot at the very back of that space when you take off, and the foot you land on can be at the very front of that space. People contort their body inside of their "personal space". The extra distance you need to land clear of an obstacle can be the space between your own feet within the space your body occupies.
Or do you really imagine people jump as if they were living pogo sticks?
???
It doesn't matter what foot you put where. 1 to 12 is still 11 feet of travel distance.
No disrespect, but that's the silliest thing I ever heard. Of course it matters where you put your feet. You're jumping!
The top diagram is how people actually jump. The squares at the start and the end are exactly 15 feet apart. The jumper moved 15' through the air, and he has a foot to spare on both the start and the end of the jump, comfortably clearing the 15' pit if I had bothered to put one in the picture.
The bottom diagram is how you seem to think people jump.
In the game world perspective, a character's ability to freely move within the granular 5' x 5' space he occupies allows him to add a large portion of that space to the distance he can clear while jumping. That's actually exactly the opposite of what some people seem to think, which is that the space you occupy needs to be added to the distance you need to jump. Let's not forget that we're talking about "acrobatics" checks. Acrobatics: "the performance of extraordinary feats of balance, agility, and motor coordination."
Ermagherd, stahp!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the "distance travelled" portion could do with a makeover, but except for competitions of athleticism, can anyone come up with an in-game scenario where knowing the exact distance you jumped actually matters more than "did I land on the far side of the obstacle"?
I'm not explaining how it works. The FAQ answers that. I'm explaining how many people have been thinking of it and why we were getting it wrong.
When I leap from the edge of a pit, my foot must push off from the small space of ground right before where the pit begins. And when I land, my foot must touch down on the small space of ground right after where the pit ends. Those two spaces are more than 10ft apart from each other because they include their own space in addition to the space the pit exists in. This is the same thinking implied in SKR's linked responses where he talked about a 10 being needed for a pit 5-9 feet wide. Think of it as:
Foot 1 (ground)
Feet 2-11 (pit), and
Foot 12 (ground).Foot 1 (where you leap from) and Foot 12 (where you land) are 11 feet apart from each other.
The part I struck in the previous post suggests to many that the DC required would be 11 because it says your result reflects the distance you move in the jump (and you really need to move 11 feet in order to reach the ground on the other side of the pit). With the FAQ giving the official answer as 10, that struck section is no longer needed and is, in fact, misdirecting.
the distance cleared is the distance between your front of the foot when you jump and your heel when you land(this is how long jumping is measured). else if you believe it's center of mass, it moves halfway off the ledge before jumping, meaning it lands halfway on the ledge on the other side.
both uses of 10 feet allow you to be on the ledge.
this isn't a problem with the rules text you just assume 2 things that are not a given, you measure center of mass to center of mass, AND you can't jump halfway off the ledge.
Quick! Somebody lock this thread before anything else happens!
I told you this would happen.
I agree we're not living pogo sticks. If the pit is only 10ft but I roll a 20 Acrobatics, I really only care that I rolled 10 or more, I really only want to travel over the pit and land on the other side, and I wouldn't care to be sailing through the air for another 10 unnecessary feet, just because that's what the die roll said, which could cause me to land in the next pit.
When do we get past the silliness and remember that you simply have to roll the DC or higher for success? Do you walk only on the very last 2" edge of the the 10" ledge if the DC was 10 but you rolled 20? Do you tumble further and way past your opponent, who you planned to just get into flanking position on, because his CMD was 10 and you rolled 20? Is that how you really want to play the game?
|
|
I didn't read all 9 pages but here is my take.
There is no need to be a slave to the grid. It is possible to play RPGs (including Pathfinder!) without counting squares.
If you were playing without a grid the answer is obvious. A 10' pit requires a 10' jump which is DC10. Why should it change if you add a map?
I agree that the "distance travelled" portion could do with a makeover, but except for competitions of athleticism, can anyone come up with an in-game scenario where knowing the exact distance you jumped actually matters more than "did I land on the far side of the obstacle"?
Possibly where you either have a partial illusory pit (think persistent image and the like) making it look smaller than it is, a wall of force, or the aforementioned Grease on the other side of the pit (see CRB 88 for stopping distances), where jumping over the squares of the unforeseen hazard comes into play...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No disrespect, but that's the silliest thing I ever heard. Of course it matters where you put your feet. You're jumping!
The top diagram is how people actually jump. The squares at the start and the end are exactly 15 feet apart. The jumper moved 15' through the air, and he has a foot to spare on both the start and the end of the jump, comfortably clearing the 15' pit if I had bothered to put one in the picture.
No disrespect taken and none offered. That illustration that you posted, however, is labeled incorrectly. In order for it to be in line with the official FAQ, it should actually be reversed. The distance the jumper's feet have moved is 17 feet and the distance he has cleared (the pit) is 15 ft.
The FAQ says you need to roll a 15 in this case. This is enough to clear the pit, but only because your feet are moving 17ft from one space of ground before the pit, covering the 15ft distance of open space over the pit, to the other space of ground after the pit, which by any measure is more than 15 feet of distance that your feet have traveled.
This means the second part of text is wrong. A result of 15 does not reflect how far I have 'traveled' as it suggests. According to the FAQ a result of 15 reflects how far I have 'cleared'. I have 'traveled' 17 feet (from jumping to landing with feet first and the rest of body following) and have 'cleared' 15 feet (of open pit). So this second part of text needs to be rewritten, removed, or just flat out ignored.
But then that's just nitpicking words back and forth. The end result is if the pit is 10ft, I need a DC 10.
Simple enough, that. :)
No disrespect taken and none offered. That illustration that you posted, however, is labeled incorrectly. In order for it to be in line with the official FAQ, it should actually be reversed. The distance the jumper's feet have moved is 17 feet and the distance he has cleared (the pit) is 15 ft.
Well, I posted that to illustrate how jumping works, not necessarily in support of how the FAQ turned out. It's only meant to show that you can clear obstacles that are as wide as the distance actually jumped without falling in on either end, showing that "distance cleared = DC" actually makes sense.
I agree though that the second part of the jumping rules doesn't intuitively match up with the first part.
|
Although, I have a new question that involves this FAQ and requiring a running start.
Imagine two 10ft pits, with a 10ft space of flat ground between them.
You get your running start and clear the first pit.
Do you have enough space to get a running start to clear the second pit?
I believe I know the answer, but want to ask others, first.
Although, I have a new question that involves this FAQ and requiring a running start.
Imagine two 10ft pits, with a 10ft space of flat ground between them.
You get your running start and clear the first pit.
Do you have enough space to get a running start to clear the second pit?
I believe I know the answer, but want to ask others, first.
If you interpret the result of an acrobatics check that beats the DC as allowing the jumper to land at the exact spot he picked (even though his acrobatics check may allow for a far greater distance), he can land just at the far edge of the first pit and have 10' of solid ground in front of him. That would allow him a running start toward the next pit. I believe you can actually land where you chose on a successful check, so it works for me.
Some people will probably argue that the forward momentum from the first jump will already provide the benefit of having a running start for the next jump even if you don't actually run 10' before that jump. I don't have a problem with that either in this exact scenario, because however you fly it, there's 10 foot between the pits and successful acrobatics checks coupled with the assumption that the character knows what he's doing, there's opportunity for a running start.
What's your answer?
Although, I have a new question that involves this FAQ and requiring a running start.
Imagine two 10ft pits, with a 10ft space of flat ground between them.
You get your running start and clear the first pit.
Do you have enough space to get a running start to clear the second pit?
I believe I know the answer, but want to ask others, first.
That could go two ways,
1. One set of folks will say that you only have 5ft because you only count the square you move into, not the one you move from,2. And the other will say you can back up to the edge of the first pit and use the whole 10ft.
It would be the same as determining if you have the 10ft required to make a charge. I would say that no, you only have 5ft to move.
I could be convinced that you could do both pits on a double move with separate acrobatics checks.
OP: What is the DC to jump a 10' pit
The end result is if the pit is 10ft, I need a DC 10.
Simple enough, that. :)
Wow 2 posts
Sprays
The language of the rule is very different:
You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares)These DCs double if you do not have at least 10 feet of space to get a running start."move 10 feet" vs "have 10 feet of space"
Told you I could be convinced.
*spittake* Did we just get a person convinced in two posts? That never happens around here!
ah geez all over the inside of my mask...
I'm not an unreasonable wolf, and even after nearly 30 years of gaming I still like to challenge what I think I know.
*Boggles*
When the player asks how far across tells them ...
that they don't know
|
|
I believe I know the answer, but want to ask others, first.What's your answer?
If I'm beginning to understand this all, the gap in between the two pits should be sufficient to clear the second pit.
I say this because you essentially "land" in the square containing a pit , and thus you have two remaining open squares with which to move in to and count as your required 10ft of movement to jump the second pit.
Though TOZ's comments on this interaction are throwing me off.