What is the DC to leap across a ten foot wide pit?


Rules Questions

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,485 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!


Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check? NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.


Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

Just to troll, you don't have a 10' running start in this situation, so the DC is doubled to 30.

DM Livgin wrote:
What is the DC for the gargantuan construct to jump a 10ft pit? What is the fall damage for falling into a pit that you would need to squeeze into?

The DC is 10 if it has a running start, 20 if it doesn't, just as anyone else. I think it could even walk across the pit.


Komoda wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Komoda wrote:
I only advocate that the movement part (not the DC) is based on heel-to-heel or toe-to-toe measurements (they should match barring very strange feet) and not toe-to-heal measurements.
Why would you advocate that, knowing it leads to a failure state?

Just perform a 180° turn in midair, and since there are no facing rules in Pathfinder, you end up facing whatever direction you want anyway! Problem solved! /snark

Seriously, I've more or less given up arguing with Komoda. They seem dead set on picking the most obtuse possible interpretation and running with it regardless of evidence.

It is hard to debate here because everyone is SO SURE they see the only way a rule can possibly be read. They KNOW they are playing it right, no matter what.

And they might be right.

They are. The devs have confirmed so. You can change the rule in your home, but it would be a home rule.

This is like going to the NBA and arguing with Adam Silver that shoots from the half court are worth 4 points because they are harder than shooting from the 3 point line. They don't. Adam Silver is the dude who makes the rules (or the boss of the team of dudes that makes the rules). There's nothing to argue here. His word is law.

You can play with your own rules in your own pick up basketball game in the local gym, or mix the rules of Basketball, H.O.R.S.E, and your own rules. You can even play with a football ball and a hockey stick if you want.

But in the NBA, shots from the half court are worth 3 points. The dudes that make the rule have confirmed that.


Komoda wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check. NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.

someone moves 15ft on a result of a 15 on a jump check.

This depends on where the GM allows you to stand, aka the grid comes back in. But the movement for the gap cleared is the distance of the gap. If the end of the gap isn't a safe square to end in, example: the 9ft pit that starts at the edge of your current square. You clear the jump with a jump of 9, traveling 9ft in the jump and 10ft total movement since it takes 10ft of movement to move into a square two away from you. Then if that's not a safe square to end you suffer that consequence, or you continue moving on land and move 5ft into the next square.


Khudzlin wrote:
DM Livgin wrote:
What is the DC for the gargantuan construct to jump a 10ft pit? What is the fall damage for falling into a pit that you would need to squeeze into?
The DC is 10 if it has a running start, 20 if it doesn't, just as anyone else. I think it could even walk across the pit.

Which is it? DC 10 or can it just walk across it? A gargantuan construct with a normal movement speed (30ft) has an acrobatics bonus of -2, odds favor it falling in the pit if it tries a running jump.


Komoda wrote:

But in the game we play, distance traveled is on the map.

Distance traveled in the jump is not.


What did the Devs confirm? My question/position was not covered in the FAQ.


Komoda wrote:
What did the Devs confirm? My question/position was not covered in the FAQ.

Every other poster except you seem to agree it was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check. NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.

someone moves 15ft on a result of a 15 on a jump check.

This depends on where the GM allows you to stand, aka the grid comes back in. But the movement for the gap cleared is the distance of the gap. If the end of the gap isn't a safe square to end in, example: the 9ft pit that starts at the edge of your current square. You clear the jump with a jump of 9, traveling 9ft in the jump and 10ft total movement since it takes 10ft of movement to move into a square two away from you. Then if that's not a safe square to end you suffer that consequence, or you continue moving on land and move 5ft into the next square.

And here is the problem.

1) We know that the DC for a 15' gap is 15.

2) You stated that a result of 15 = 15' of movement.
"someone moves 15ft on a result of a 15 on a jump check."

3) If you move 15' of movement, you fall in the hole.

You have to move MORE THAN 15' to jump a 15' hole.

I agree that the DC is 15. Just that the MOVEMENT of a result of 15 has to be more than 15'. I am willing to say the movement is only 1' more to make it easy.

But the DC cannot be equal to both the gap jumped AND the movement on the map.


Komoda wrote:
What did the Devs confirm? My question/position was not covered in the FAQ.

"Since it didn't EXPLICITLY say so, I'm going to ignore the FAQ and the precedence it sets. Clearly the second half of jumping rules are still completely broken, wrong, and not at all going to match the FAQ from the part above it. I know that the rules are meant to be read to be broken and that's the correct reading of the rules and everyone else is reading it wrong."

Or

You're wrong, everyone else is right. The new FAQ would fallow the other FAQs president, and is going to be the same answer for the bottom part as the top, "If you total 10 you jump 10ft and you traveled 10ft with your jump. You'll likely move more on your turn, but the jumping part is separate from that."


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Komoda wrote:

But in the game we play, distance traveled is on the map.

Distance traveled in the jump is not.

So if you jump up 5', how far do you move?

Is it different than when you jump 5' horizontally?

I imagine you will say horizontally is measured toe-to-heel, but vertically is measured bottom of heel-to-bottom of heel.

Is there anything in the rules to back up your position or is it just understood?


Komoda wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check. NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.

someone moves 15ft on a result of a 15 on a jump check.

This depends on where the GM allows you to stand, aka the grid comes back in. But the movement for the gap cleared is the distance of the gap. If the end of the gap isn't a safe square to end in, example: the 9ft pit that starts at the edge of your current square. You clear the jump with a jump of 9, traveling 9ft in the jump and 10ft total movement since it takes 10ft of movement to move into a square two away from you. Then if that's not a safe square to end you suffer that consequence, or you continue moving on land and move 5ft into the next square.

And here is the problem.

1) We know that the DC for a 15' gap is 15.

2) You stated that a result of 15 = 15' of movement.
"someone moves 15ft on a result of a 15 on a jump check."

3) If you move 15' of movement, you fall in the hole.

You have to move MORE THAN 15' to jump a 15' hole.

I agree that the DC is 15. Just that the MOVEMENT of a result of 15 has to be more than 15'. I am willing to say the movement is only 1' more to make it easy.

But the DC cannot be equal to both the gap jumped AND the movement on the map.

There is no problem but the one you're making. They jumped 15ft, a jump of 15ft clears 15ft. Movement outside of jumping to have safe spot to land isn't part of the jump movement.


Komoda wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check? NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.

They move 15 feet... in the jump. If you had a movement speed of 5000 and you wanted to clear a 10 foot gap that was 2500 feet away then travel another 2000 beyond that, the dc is still 10 to clear it, And the distance travelled in the jump is 10. A safe landing area is not part of the jump, it is the landing, and is not part of the DC nor the distance travelled in the jump.

Remember that in pathfinder, d20 rolls follow a binary "pass or fail" paradigm. You either succeed at jumping 10 feet, or you fail. Then it lets you divine more information: If you failed, how far did you jump? But like attack rolls, exceeding the DC by 10 doesn't mean you overshoot the jump by 10. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the person making the jump has zero control of how far they jump, and will land, every time, in a random location on a line that measures 20 feet long.

So if you're looking for a DC, the answer is "the amount to be cleared". If you're looking for "as far as I can jump", then the result is your roll.

There's really no longer any reason to obfuscate this further, now that there's a FAQ on how to handle it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Komoda wrote:

But in the game we play, distance traveled is on the map.

Distance traveled in the jump is not.

So if you jump up 5', how far do you move?

Is it different than when you jump 5' horizontally?

I imagine you will say horizontally is measured toe-to-heel, but vertically is measured bottom of heel-to-bottom of heel.

Is there anything in the rules to back up your position or is it just understood?

Yes, assuming that your heel stays the lowest point reached on your jump, because for high jumping the distance is the lowest part of your body. All of your body needs to go over 5ft to jump 5ft high.

Once you accept that the rules, this one in particular, was written in conversational tone using the commonly accepted definitions for high jumping and long jumping and their measurements the rules are clear, coherent, and not in conflict.
Only when reading with intent to get the wrong answer or ignoring the commonly accepted definitions for jumping and using new definitions does this rule "break"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Two plus two is five, for sufficiently large values of two.
Well, if we're rounding 2.4 down to 2, then adding to get 4.8, which rounds up to 5...

Damn engineers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
I only advocate that the movement part (not the DC) is based on heel-to-heel or toe-to-toe measurements (they should match barring very strange feet) and not toe-to-heal measurements.

No one who measures jumps, measures them in this way. No one. You are advocating a thing that no one does.

If you are measuring something the wrong way, and these wrong measurements create problems you can't solve... perhaps just stop measuring things the wrong way.

Your whole position at this point is "hey, maybe we should fundamentally change the way we measure jumps, that way it'll create a problem with how the rules work, so then we'll have to change the rules."

Or... we could not do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
What did the Devs confirm? My question/position was not covered in the FAQ.

"Since it didn't EXPLICITLY say so, I'm going to ignore the FAQ and the precedence it sets. Clearly the second half of jumping rules are still completely broken, wrong, and not at all going to match the FAQ from the part above it. I know that the rules are meant to be read to be broken and that's the correct reading of the rules and everyone else is reading it wrong."

Or

You're wrong, everyone else is right. The new FAQ would fallow the other FAQs president, and is going to be the same answer for the bottom part as the top, "If you total 10 you jump 10ft and you traveled 10ft with your jump. You'll likely move more on your turn, but the jumping part is separate from that."

There are rules holes all over the game. Ignoring them doesn't make them or the game better. Finding them and fixing it does.

That is how stealth got changed. That is how the rule that you could take as many free actions as you had attacks got changed. That is how the "metaphysical hands" came into being.

We know that you don't ignore EVERY penalty to attacks with Shield Master, but would still like to see it fixed. We know that darkvision doesn't stop all forms of stealth within 60', even though it EXPLICITLY states that it does. I think we would like that fixed too.

Don't attack me because I think I found a mistake, especially when I am pointing it out as one and not trying to use an exploit. The rule, even if it works the way you say it does, causes problems where having a good jump check can easily make it impossible to jump short distances. The rule is bad. The rule should be removed. Even without my reading of the rule, it is a bad rule that is counter to EVERY OTHER SKILL in the game where the higher you roll, the better you do. Based on that rule, you have a very small window in which to hit your target. You do not get better with a better jump. The target may be impossible to hit if you jump skill is too high. It is a bad rule.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Komoda wrote:
Based on that rule, you have a very small window in which to hit your target. You do not get better with a better jump. The target may be impossible to hit if you jump skill is too high.

Do you actually play it that way?


Komoda maybe...just maybe you are the one creating the issues that don't actually exist.

I've seen a few threads with you in them at this point where you fabricate some issue with a rule being a "mistake" get proven wrong on how your looking at it; with RAW proof or a FAQ, and still refuse to acknowledge it.


Komoda wrote:
[...] The rule, even if it works the way you say it does, causes problems where having a good jump check can easily make it impossible to jump short distances. [...]

It doesn't cause such problems in my game. Why does it cause them in yours?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:

I'm not using the grid either.

I really don't see what the problem is.

So, based on your picture, ignore the grid, how far does someone move when they get a result of 15 on a jump check? NOT how big is the gap that they clear.

Or another way, What is the movement for the gap cleared and the safe landing area?

And please tell me how you got that number.

They move 15 feet... in the jump. If you had a movement speed of 5000 and you wanted to clear a 10 foot gap that was 2500 feet away then travel another 2000 beyond that, the dc is still 10 to clear it, And the distance travelled in the jump is 10. A safe landing area is not part of the jump, it is the landing, and is not part of the DC nor the distance travelled in the jump.

Remember that in pathfinder, d20 rolls follow a binary "pass or fail" paradigm. You either succeed at jumping 10 feet, or you fail. Then it lets you divine more information: If you failed, how far did you jump? But like attack rolls, exceeding the DC by 10 doesn't mean you overshoot the jump by 10. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the person making the jump has zero control of how far they jump, and will land, every time, in a random location on a line that measures 20 feet long.

So if you're looking for a DC, the answer is "the amount to be cleared". If you're looking for "as far as I can jump", then the result is your roll.

There's really no longer any reason to obfuscate this further, now that there's a FAQ on how to handle it.

All other skills are binary, or at least really fail/kind of fail/pass/pass better/pass even better etc.

But with the line "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." you do not have the ability to say, I want to jump 10' and jump 10' with a result of 30. With a result of 30, you have cleared 30' (if you want to or not) and landed another, I guess 1' in. So, even though your target square was 3 squares away, you land 7 squares away.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the rule "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." says that, do they?

EDIT: And I agree that I play the same way you are suggesting. But I think the actual rule needs to be cleaned up to say as much rather than us just all "knowing" the right way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Komoda maybe...just maybe you are the one creating the issues that don't actually exist.

I've seen a few threads with you in them at this point where you fabricate some issue with a rule being a "mistake" get proven wrong on how your looking at it; with RAW proof or a FAQ, and still refuse to acknowledge it.

You have seen two. And in both cases my position is often completely misunderstood and misrepresented. Maybe I have a hard time getting it across. Maybe I am over thinking it. But in my mind, the question/point I am trying to make is far different than that shown in the FAQ or any DEV post that I have seen.

Is there another FAQ for jump other than the one posted on the CRB page? It makes no mention of this second part of the rule, or the fact that one MUST land where the dice says, rather than the pass/fail nature of most skill checks.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Based on that rule, you have a very small window in which to hit your target. You do not get better with a better jump. The target may be impossible to hit if you jump skill is too high.
Do you actually play it that way?

Not at all. But that is what is says, which no one has said otherwise yet. And it is why I advocate removing that line altogether.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
Not at all. But that is what is says, which no one has said otherwise yet. And it is why I advocate removing that line altogether.

Then start a new thread for that, as it has nothing to do with what the actual DC is.


Komoda wrote:

All other skills are binary, or at least really fail/kind of fail/pass/pass better/pass even better etc.

But with the line "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." you do not have the ability to say, I want to jump 10' and jump 10' with a result of 30. With a result of 30, you have cleared 30' (if you want to or not) and landed another, I guess 1' in. So, even though your target square was 3 squares away, you land 7 squares away.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the rule "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." says that, do they?

You can, in fact, use that line to make the interpretation that every person ever is only ever capable of jumping forward, then landing in a random spot on a 20 foot long line. That an extremely dextrous(20 dex) person at level 5 is incapable of jumping less than 10 feet, nor is he capable of controlling where he lands in a range of 11-30 feet away.

Or you can treat the result like you treat the rest of the game: in an abstracted manner.

Even if the wording could be better, which I agree with, I do not agree that the wording is so broken that you can't even play it out as written.

One real easy way to say it is the result of your jump equals the maximum distance traveled in the jump. Now characters have better control of their jumps, it works as intended, and the DC of everything as well as the FAQ presented are consistent. Is it written this way? no. Does it need to be written this way to be understood as working this way? no. Is it, therefore, worth the time and effort on the side of the development team to make so trivial a change? no.


Komoda wrote:

There are rules holes all over the game. Ignoring them doesn't make them or the game better. Finding them and fixing it does.

Fixing every possible law hole that a lawyer could try to exploit would mean we have a CRB with 2000 pages or so. We would need to start with a definition of what is "to jump". And what's "a gap". What are "feet", and what is "to clear".

Rules assume players have a moddicum of common sense. That's why there are no penalties explictly stated for dead characters, but most people assume that dead characters can't take actions.

Now, if the game were meant to be played by automatons, or computers following strictly an algorithm, then yes, rules should be more complex. Probably a few more millions of lines of code. Fortunately, it's not needed.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

Komoda maybe...just maybe you are the one creating the issues that don't actually exist.

I've seen a few threads with you in them at this point where you fabricate some issue with a rule being a "mistake" get proven wrong on how your looking at it; with RAW proof or a FAQ, and still refuse to acknowledge it.

When is midnight? Is it in the morning, or is it at night. When an assignment is due at midnight of the 14th do you have 0 minutes on the 14th to work on it, or do you have 24 hours?

If you insist there is a midnight of the 14th, than there must be two.

The real answer is that midnight is the un-measurable instant between two days so there is NEVER a midnight on the 14th. There is one just before, and one just after. So saying something is due at midnight of a day is not accurate.

You would have to say:

"the first midnight just before the 14th"

or

"the first midnight just after the 14th"

for someone to be sure they knew which midnight you were referring.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Most people will think I am crazy as it is clearly the midnight after 11:59 PM on the 14th. A few will be sure that it is just before 12:01 AM on the 14th.

But a slight few will know that I am right. Most of those just ignore that facts about midnight and assume people are talking about the one just after 11:59 PM because they don't care.

That is how I think. Sometimes it gets me into trouble. Sometimes it saves my butt.

I am not here to troll or cause problems. I like to think. I like to look at the minute details. I like to have the correct information of those details. I can't get them until I convey my position. I feel it is often misunderstood because people often convert my position to the most common misunderstanding surrounding the issue. In this case how I have had to say countless times that I am not falling prey to the "grid" movement problem.

Anyway, happy gaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to jump at the very last second, preferably with a vine close by.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Komoda wrote:

All other skills are binary, or at least really fail/kind of fail/pass/pass better/pass even better etc.

But with the line "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." you do not have the ability to say, I want to jump 10' and jump 10' with a result of 30. With a result of 30, you have cleared 30' (if you want to or not) and landed another, I guess 1' in. So, even though your target square was 3 squares away, you land 7 squares away.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the rule "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." says that, do they?

You can, in fact, use that line to make the interpretation that every person ever is only ever capable of jumping forward, then landing in a random spot on a 20 foot long line. That an extremely dextrous(20 dex) person at level 5 is incapable of jumping less than 10 feet, nor is he capable of controlling where he lands in a range of 11-30 feet away.

Or you can treat the result like you treat the rest of the game: in an abstracted manner.

Even if the wording could be better, which I agree with, I do not agree that the wording is so broken that you can't even play it out as written.

One real easy way to say it is the result of your jump equals the maximum distance traveled in the jump. Now characters have better control of their jumps, it works as intended, and the DC of everything as well as the FAQ presented are consistent. Is it written this way? no. Does it need to be written this way to be understood as working this way? no. Is it, therefore, worth the time and effort on the side of the development team to make so trivial a change? no.

Would you believe some people think that means that you stop in midair and finish the jump on your next turn? Its a thing. I've seen it a few times here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Komoda wrote:

There are rules holes all over the game. Ignoring them doesn't make them or the game better. Finding them and fixing it does.

Fixing every possible law hole that a lawyer could try to exploit would mean we have a CRB with 2000 pages or so. We would need to start with a definition of what is "to jump". And what's "a gap". What are "feet", and what is "to clear".

Rules assume players have a moddicum of common sense. That's why there are no penalties explictly stated for dead characters, but most people assume that dead characters can't take actions.

Now, if the game were meant to be played by automatons, or computers following strictly an algorithm, then yes, rules should be more complex. Probably a few more millions of lines of code. Fortunately, it's not needed.

While I agree with you, in this case I am actually advocating removing one line that most of us ignore anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

11:59:59:59 on july 14th is before midnight.

12:00:00:00 on july 15th is midnight.

12:00:00:01 on july 15th is after midnight.

If a school says an assignment is due on the 14th by midnight, it means that when you've hit midnight july 15th, it is too late.

Just because someone can be easily confused by something doesn't mean that there isn't a single correct way to interpret it.

EDIT: To make it even more correct:

23:59:59:59,

00:00:00:00,

00:00:00:01.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But it's precisely that "look at minute details" approach to rules that aren't written to a level that supports it that's causing you these problems.

Anyone casually reading these rules isn't going to have these kinds of issues.

"Oh, you want to jump a 10' pit? Look, there's a DC of 10 in the table. Roll."
"You want to jump as far as you can? Roll. You got a 23? You jump 23 feet."

It really is that simple. That's the level of detail the rules support. Parsing every little nuance to see if it breaks doesn't work. And never will. This is so far down the list of things I want the dev team spending time on it isn't even funny.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
Most people will think I am crazy...

If I didn't before, I certainly do now.

But that's okay, most of us are.


I use it all the time. I have many "ninja, rogue, acrobatical things" all over, and all the time they are wanting to try and jump over as much difficult terrain as possible. If you remove that line, there is no rule to see how far they are able jump to know how much difficult terrain they clear. One would be force to set a DC for an anticipated jump, and then success or fail,... and if they fail then they never jumped since you have no rule to say they move on a jump. Like starting a climb, you succeed you move, fail and you don't, same for jump right?

So in any attempted or suggested fix, you'd need to make sure that it gives rules for if you move on a failed jump, how far you move, and if you're able to jump as far as you can without needing a DC, and how far do you travel if you can.

Or one can accept that the rules are talking about what someone has said they are.
Set distance = DC, fail and you only move the amount on your check, succeed and your jump cleared that distance and puts you at the edge of the pit.

As far as you want, move the amount from your check.
Jumping distance is measured in game as in real life, so jumping 10ft means you traveled 10ft with your jump (any other non-jumping movement needed to end in a valid spot is not included) and cleared 10ft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

But it's precisely that "look at minute details" approach to rules that aren't written to a level that supports it that's causing you these problems.

Anyone casually reading these rules isn't going to have these kinds of issues.

"Oh, you want to jump a 10' pit? Look, there's a DC of 10 in the table. Roll."
"You want to jump as far as you can? Roll. You got a 23? You jump 23 feet."

It really is that simple. That's the level of detail the rules support. Parsing every little nuance to see if it breaks doesn't work. And never will. This is so far down the list of things I want the dev team spending time on it isn't even funny.

Anyone casually looking at the rules isn't on page 27.

And if you're not interested in that detail, bow out of the conversation. If the Devs aren't, they won't answer.

I am not emailing them or trying to force them to answer. I am just posting thoughts on the forum where we post thoughts about the rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You may just be over thinking the issue.

10 feet. Dc 10. That was the official answer.

That's it. We can move on.


50-some odd posts after the FAQ, and no, apparently we can not. ;)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:

(snip)

Anyway, happy gaming.

If literally everyone is misinterpreting your position, what is more likely: that everyone is just too dense to grasp it, or that you are doing a poor job of articulating it? And that's assuming your position is being misinterpreted in the first place. Between here and the HIPS thread I've seen you consistently claim that every response to your claims are fundamentally missing your point, but you fail to demonstrate how this is the case. Occasionally you change the subject of your argument to a related, but different, point (such as shifting from the "DC 11 to avoid falling into a 10' wide pit" business to the "if you roll 25 you must travel 25' in the jump" business), but you never actually show what the misinterpretation is. You'll just repeat the same things using the same examples and expecting different results. I'm forced to conclude that you are either trolling, or that you have some sort of serious misunderstanding about how you communicate.

Incidentally, you're mostly right about how "the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump" is poorly worded and makes for potential misinterpretation of the intent (it does not, however, say that if you roll a 25 you MUST travel 25', only that it indicates that you could travel 25'), but it's overshadowed by that whole business about insisting jumps be measured toe to heel, that you have to roll an 11 to safely land across a 10' pit, and all that business. If you had open and shut with "Hey, this is worded poorly because someone could misread this in this way, it would be great if they changed/removed that," I don't think there would be an issue.

EDUT: removed a bit that was a bit overly snarky and didn't add anything to the discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.


DM Livgin wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
DM Livgin wrote:
What is the DC for the gargantuan construct to jump a 10ft pit? What is the fall damage for falling into a pit that you would need to squeeze into?
The DC is 10 if it has a running start, 20 if it doesn't, just as anyone else. I think it could even walk across the pit.
Which is it? DC 10 or can it just walk across it? A gargantuan construct with a normal movement speed (30ft) has an acrobatics bonus of -2, odds favor it falling in the pit if it tries a running jump.

It might not even fall in, since the pit is 1/4 its space.


Chemlak wrote:

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.

Then the jump he wants to clear (whether it be a pit, a section of difficult terrain, or whatever) becomes a DC of 15 with a pass/fail treatment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The tricky part is that pathfinder usually doesn't care which square you are leaving. If you check for difficult terrain for example the square you are entering is the important one. You can for example use a 5-foot-step to leave difficult terrain given you are already at its border. With jumping it's the same.

So when you try to jump over a pit you check the square you are currently entering. Is it a pit? Looks like you have to jump further. Is it solid ground? Gratulations, your jump was successful. You don't have to be jumping to enter a regular square. Thats why the DC only looks for squares that you can't stand on.
If the pit doesn't cover the whole square just break it down to feet. It still works the same.


Komoda wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Komoda wrote:

All other skills are binary, or at least really fail/kind of fail/pass/pass better/pass even better etc.

But with the line "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." you do not have the ability to say, I want to jump 10' and jump 10' with a result of 30. With a result of 30, you have cleared 30' (if you want to or not) and landed another, I guess 1' in. So, even though your target square was 3 squares away, you land 7 squares away.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the rule "the result is the distance traveled in the jump..." says that, do they?

You can, in fact, use that line to make the interpretation that every person ever is only ever capable of jumping forward, then landing in a random spot on a 20 foot long line. That an extremely dextrous(20 dex) person at level 5 is incapable of jumping less than 10 feet, nor is he capable of controlling where he lands in a range of 11-30 feet away.

Or you can treat the result like you treat the rest of the game: in an abstracted manner.

Even if the wording could be better, which I agree with, I do not agree that the wording is so broken that you can't even play it out as written.

One real easy way to say it is the result of your jump equals the maximum distance traveled in the jump. Now characters have better control of their jumps, it works as intended, and the DC of everything as well as the FAQ presented are consistent. Is it written this way? no. Does it need to be written this way to be understood as working this way? no. Is it, therefore, worth the time and effort on the side of the development team to make so trivial a change? no.

Would you believe some people think that means that you stop in midair and finish the jump on your next turn? Its a thing. I've seen it a few times here.

That is a carryover some people who played D&D 3.0/3.5 have because that actually was in the rules for one of those at least. You could jump more than you could move in a round you finished that movement the next round. Which is because your turns all happen immediatly after each other but trying to run the game where everything happens at once would be insane.


Chemlak wrote:

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.

15 feet. For everyone running the game which is not an automaton that must follow parsed lines of code in algorithms without applying common sense, logic and context.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.

15 feet. For everyone running the game which is not an automaton that must follow parsed lines of code in algorithms without applying common sense, logic and context.

Then such a person, while being wise enough to do what clearly makes sense, would be going against the CRB.

That's the reason why some people want a change.


Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.

15 feet. For everyone running the game which is not an automaton that must follow parsed lines of code in algorithms without applying common sense, logic and context.

Then such a person, while being wise enough to do what clearly makes sense, would be going against the CRB.

That's the reason why some people want a change.

For those who want this change, how would you phrase it?

It's not as simple as dropping that line, since then you've got no idea how far you move when you fail a DC or when you try to jump as far as you can.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Komoda wrote:


Anyone casually looking at the rules isn't on page 27.

Hey, I made it this far just for the snark.

And the snark to pedantry ratio has been distressingly low for the last page or so.


Komoda wrote:


A lot of people get stuck on the grid but it is a mistake and has nothing to do with my position that the rules do not match.

You keep saying this, but then every example you bring up of why there is a problem involves the grid. e.g

Komoda wrote:


So say the gap is DC 13 and starts right on the edge of the grid.

So quit using the grid in your examples.

And on a side note:

Komoda wrote:


Would you believe some people think that means that you stop in midair and finish the jump on your next turn? Its a thing. I've seen it a few times here.

This is rather ironic given your complaints about no one understanding your position. You've misrepresented the above position by the claim that they "stop in midair". That has never been actually claimed by anyone advocating that position that I recall. Only that your turn ends while your in mid air, and your movement continues (flying over the pit/obstacle) on your next turn. So in a turn based system it seems they are hanging mid air while everyone else is taking their turns, but that is simply a result of the game abstraction.

I believe I understand your position, as do several others. But the FAQ, the context of the rules, and common sense tell us that while we could arrive at your conclusion and a broken/contradictory rules, we can also arrive at one that works, so we take the one that works as the correct reading.

Silver Crusade

Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

Then such a person, while being wise enough to do what clearly makes sense, would be going against the CRB.

Only if you assume the words "indicates the distance traveled" means "requires this distance traveled." I agree it's poorly worded, but it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Still, a rewording wouldn't go amiss.

thejeff wrote:

]For those who want this change, how would you phrase it?

It's not as simple as dropping that line, since then you've got no idea how far you move when you fail a DC or when you try to jump as far as you can.

I would think the inclusion of the word "maximum" would sort things out.

"For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the maximum distance traveled in the jump"

Actually, just for clarity's sake, I might reiterate that pricely that each point on the roll represents a foot of potential movement as well, but it strictly isn't necessary.

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,485 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What is the DC to leap across a ten foot wide pit? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.