Does the existence of the Sudden Leap feat mean no one else can Strike while jumping?


Rules Discussion


The Sudden Leap feat is a Level 8 fighter/barbarian feat that says:

Quote:

Sudden Leap Two Actions Feat 8

Barbarian Fighter

Source Core Rulebook pg. 149 1.1

You make an impressive leap and swing while you soar. Make a Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump and attempt one melee Strike at any point during your jump. Immediately after the Strike, you fall to the ground if you’re in the air, even if you haven’t reached the maximum distance of your jump. If the distance you fall is no more than the height of your jump, you take no damage and land upright.

When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs, and increase your maximum distance to double your Speed.

Special If you have Felling Strike, you can spend 3 actions to make a Sudden Leap and use Felling Strike instead of a normal Strike.

Does that mean that, without this feat, you cannot attack something while jumping?

This has bothered me, as in one campaign I'm running my middle-school players wanted to jump and hit a particular flying quasit in a well-known published adventure. I said yeah, as I didn't want to discourage their creativity and it didn't seem unreasonable.

In a short Level 20 adventure I'm running, one of my players has a Level 20 monk and jumped from a 30' height toward a demon that was 20' above the ground. He wanted to hit it on his way down.

I knew that Sudden Leap existed and that he didn't have it, so I ruled that he could attempt a midair Grapple check to land on the creature and grapple it. He failed, and so he fell to the ground.

Did I rule this right? And is there no way to make weapon attacks while jumping under RAW? Because I admit I'm not a fan of it if that's true.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Monks also have Flying Kick. The rules are pretty much the same as Sudden Leap.

The reason you can't attack after jumping is because if you jump and don't have ground beneath you, you fall. A free falling object will fall about 580 feet in 6 seconds, hitting the ground at insane speeds.

Basically, unless you have special training, you would be falling too fast to do anything useful before hitting the ground.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you can't do that because you can't "break" an action with action (using an action before you finish the prievous one). An altternative to Sudden Leap, which is valid if your GM is kind enough, is using Grab an Edge to catch a flying creature (Grab an Edge is reaction, so you can "break" the action) and Strike next action - it is rule lawyering, but 'edge' is not a very specific word.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Long Jump and High Jump require two actions. So doing a strike would require a third action, and this feat just saves it.

Humbly,
Yawar


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YawarFiesta wrote:

Long Jump and High Jump require two actions. So doing a strike would require a third action, and this feat just saves it.

Humbly,
Yawar

Quick Jump reduce the routine to 2 actions (High Jump + Grab an Edge + Strike). You have a point, but the real advantage of Sudden Leap is that you can preform it with Leap, High Jump and Long Jump, save a reaction, jump further and land saftely (my altternative is more for low levels or if you prefer not to choose Sudden Jump).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, I'm OK with people landing strikes while jumping without the feat. The still offers a huge increase in mobility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules already specify that regardless of the feat.

Leaping (a 3 foot vertical jump) is an action, while high jump (a 5 or 8 foot vertical jump) is a 2 action activity.

Both of those activities end with you landing on the ground, and you can't make an attack action until previous actions have been resolved. You can use a reaction if any are applicable however, as those resolve as soon as triggered.

Basically, you have to resolve one action (jumping) fully before you can use an attack action, which means you will have finished your jump (and hence be on the ground again) before you get to make an attack action.

The only way around it (other than the feat which exists for this purpose) I can think of is to ready an attack action (so you can attack as a reaction outside your turn) and have a teammate throw you or use an ability that lets you leap outside of your return.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

I knew that Sudden Leap existed and that he didn't have it, so I ruled that he could attempt a midair Grapple check to land on the creature and grapple it. He failed, and so he fell to the ground.

Did I rule this right? And is there no way to make weapon attacks while jumping under RAW? Because I admit I'm not a fan of it if that's true.

You were wrong from a "following the rules to the letter" standpoint. That said, I agree with you that these rules aren't really satisfying and it's something I'd be open changing in my own campaign too.

In fact, in the past I've mistakenly allowed it, allowing someone to jump off a ledge and grab a gargoyle and hang from it, trying to drag it down to the ground with their body weight.

I'm not sure I'd throw the door open to everyone to doing this without any form of prior training. You mention a level 20 monk - but you can make a level 20 monk with no affinity with jumping of any kind. So level 20 is kind of an empty number.

But I also don't like that it's locked deeply in a stack of not-so-low-level class feats. I think this is something that could fit in neatly as a skill feat, perhaps one requiring Expert Athletics or so. That puts it within fairly close reach for most characters, while still being something to strive for at beginner level.


A feat like the Monk feat Water Step states that the benefit (in this case, Striding across a liquid surface) ends when your movement ends.
My question is, when does "movement" end? Does it end at the end of your move action? Or can it continue if your subsequent actions are movement actions, or actions that include movement (such as Sudden Charge, or the Step and Strike action of Skirmish Strike)? Can "movement" continue until the end of your turn if you continue taking such actions?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

Does that mean that, without this feat, you cannot attack something while jumping?

Yes, the PF2 rules are chock full of instances negating a GM's desire to say "yes but".

Anytime you attempt to allow something not explicitly allowed by the rules, you are likely negating a feat you didn't even know about.

And the core rules hamper and restrict heroes very hard, much much harder than any comparable D&D game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:

The rules already specify that regardless of the feat.

Leaping (a 3 foot vertical jump) is an action, while high jump (a 5 or 8 foot vertical jump) is a 2 action activity.

Both of those activities end with you landing on the ground, and you can't make an attack action until previous actions have been resolved. You can use a reaction if any are applicable however, as those resolve as soon as triggered.

Basically, you have to resolve one action (jumping) fully before you can use an attack action, which means you will have finished your jump (and hence be on the ground again) before you get to make an attack action.

The only way around it (other than the feat which exists for this purpose) I can think of is to ready an attack action (so you can attack as a reaction outside your turn) and have a teammate throw you or use an ability that lets you leap outside of your return.

I am gonna play the devil's advocate here mostly to defend the rule of cool.

A leap doesn't end with you landing in the ground, but with you landing on the designated square. If you designate an "air square" you would begin falling after you "land". This means that using a strike would not be breaking the leap action, but rather doing the action in quick succession or as the character is falling.

Humbly,
Yawar

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

As others note, the rules for attacking something while jumping without any Feats are Ready Action - Jump. You will usually need a way to increase your vertical leap to make this useful, but it's doable.

Zapp wrote:
Yes, the PF2 rules are chock full of instances negating a GM's desire to say "yes but".

They're really not. As I just said, there is in fact a way to do this. It's just action intensive.

Zapp wrote:
Anytime you attempt to allow something not explicitly allowed by the rules, you are likely negating a feat you didn't even know about.

Again, you really don't. Nor does that have anything to do with this issue since, as others note, whether you can do this is hard coded in the base rules.

Zapp wrote:
And the core rules hamper and restrict heroes very hard, much much harder than any comparable D&D game.

This is a ridiculous statement. 3.0 and 3.5 restricted PCs more IME, as did PF1, honestly, and 4E restricted them a lot more.

It's debatably more restricted than early editions or 5E, but only inasmuch as those lack rules for a lot of things entirely.


I don't allow midair Strikes in my games, but i do allow midair Grapples.

I know neither of them are RAW, but it just make sense to me to allow someone to "grab" something while he's in tha air, making a Strike, less so since you lack footing to leverage it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think spending 2 actions to ready the strike as a reaction, and then using leap as your third action is a good way to show players that it is possible when the circumstances allow for it (like jumping from above to attack a creature matthew mcconaughey style in rein of fire, probably with about the same results), but if it is a cinematic maneuver that they want to focus on doing often, you build your character around doing so, including going out to grab dedication feats to get a specific maneuver.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If you want to buy yourself time to attack the creature without having to spend a feat, simply use the GRAB AN EDGE reaction to grab a hold as you fall past. THEN, once you've grabbed a hold and arrested your fall, you attack it. :)

It wouldn't even be considered a grapple if you weren't intending to interfere with its actions. :P


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
as did PF1, honestly

Feats turning things that felt like they should be something anyone could try into a feat-specific activity was a big complaint in PF1, even.

Though it being a problem in PF1 doesn't make it feel like less of a problem when PF2 does stuff like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd allow it, RAW or no. Sudden Leap has multiple advantages even without it:

1. Action economy. A Long Jump or a High Jump is normally 2 actions and need a run-up. This is negated by Quick Jump, but that leaves the other benefit:

2. Vastly increased height. A High Jump is normally 5 feet on a DC 30 check, or 8 feet on a crit. Sudden Leap lets you use Long Jump DCs for the high jump, to a maximum of twice your speed. That means that if someone's 20 feet up, that's a DC 15 check (because you also have a 5 foot reach), which is super easy, barely an inconvenience. That's an ability you normally get from Cloud Jump, a legendary skill feat — but even with both Cloud Jump and Quick Jump, there's one additional advantage:

3. Falling damage. If you Cloud Jump 30 feet up and make an attack, you then fall 30 feet. Sudden Leap avoids that. Mind you, falling 30 feet isn't that big a deal to a level 15+ character, but it's not nothing.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
as did PF1, honestly

Feats turning things that felt like they should be something anyone could try into a feat-specific activity was a big complaint in PF1, even.

Though it being a problem in PF1 doesn't make it feel like less of a problem when PF2 does stuff like that.

PF1 did it less than a lot of people implied. PF2 does it even less than that.

In fact, in the last thread we had a big argument about that in, the only example that stood up to any scrutiny at all was Survey Wildlife, and even that one allows identifying creatures with Survival when it's normally the province of Nature.

A lot of people, in both editions, assume that if a Feat allows you to do something superhumanly well somehow doing it at all requires that Feat, but there's no actual evidence of that or support for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No. You can still strike while jumping. You just do it at the end of your job and then take a fall.

PF2 is about allowing characters to do things multiple different ways. Sometimes with class feats. Sometimes with skill feats. Sometimes with DM caveat. Never assume something can't be done just because a feat provides a more sure way to do something that doesn't require a GM ruling.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

No. You can still strike while jumping. You just do it at the end of your job and then take a fall.

PF2 is about allowing characters to do things multiple different ways. Sometimes with class feats. Sometimes with skill feats. Sometimes with DM caveat. Never assume something can't be done just because a feat provides a more sure way to do something that doesn't require a GM ruling.

Could you support this with a citation?

Because as far as I can see, if you don't have any ability with a "hang around" clause, you would just immediately fall after ending your jumping action, before you got to do your strike.

This isn't a case of "you could do this until the feat". The feat allows you to do something that wasn't possible at all to do before. We'd just all wish it had been different, but it's not the fault of those feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

No. You can still strike while jumping. You just do it at the end of your job and then take a fall.

PF2 is about allowing characters to do things multiple different ways. Sometimes with class feats. Sometimes with skill feats. Sometimes with DM caveat. Never assume something can't be done just because a feat provides a more sure way to do something that doesn't require a GM ruling.

Could you support this with a citation?

Because as far as I can see, if you don't have any ability with a "hang around" clause, you would just immediately fall after ending your jumping action, before you got to do your strike.

This isn't a case of "you could do this until the feat". The feat allows you to do something that wasn't possible at all to do before. We'd just all wish it had been different, but it's not the fault of those feats.

Nope. Just making sure to chime in that a DM is always able to make a decision if something can be done. Attempting to insert realism or hard rules when skill feats like Cloud Jump exist is pretty pointless. If someone can jump 60 feet, get in range of a target, they can swing as far as I'm concerned. Then they fall.

I do not plan to play any of these games like a rules lawyer. The order which the person falls is not important as long as the action can be pictured in the mind's eye using an available skill feat.

Nothing in the rules states the person must fall first at the end of a jump. They can jump 30 or 60 feet with a Cloud Jump, take a swing, then fall.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
and even that one allows identifying creatures with Survival when it's normally the province of Nature.

My apologies, Survey Wildlife doesn't allow this. I was misremembering. I remain dubious of it really restricting things, and it's definitely the only example I don't have a detailed refutation for, but it in particular isn't quite as clear cut as this. My bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
As others note, the rules for attacking something while jumping without any Feats are Ready Action - Jump. You will usually need a way to increase your vertical leap to make this useful, but it's doable.

Can you do this though? According to the description on page 470 the Ready action ends your turn so you wouldn’t then be able to jump.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Player: "Oh man, I don't have anything to shoot or throw. Can I jump and try to hit it in the air?"

GM: "Sure, I'll say that's a 3 action activity and you take a -1 penalty to hit, since you're flailing"

Player: "Nice."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Player: "Oh man, I don't have anything to shoot or throw. Can I jump and try to hit it in the air?"

GM: "Sure, I'll say that's a 3 action activity and you take a -1 penalty to hit, since you're flailing"

Player: "Nice."

while there are a lot of ways to go with it, and while indeed the ultimate goal of a game is for everyone around to have fun, i believe such approach would be better served in the Advice subforum (with something like "how would you houserule a melee combatant without feat support attacking in midair") rather than the rules subforum.

RAW wise there's little someone can do to circumvent that (which is why it's often desirable for martials to always have at least a ranged weapon alongside their main)

But as always, final arbiter is the GM and how easy he wants to make it for the players to do something required/cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Player: "Oh man, I don't have anything to shoot or throw. Can I jump and try to hit it in the air?"

GM: "Sure, I'll say that's a 3 action activity and you take a -1 penalty to hit, since you're flailing"

Player: "Nice."

Yeah, this is basically exactly how I'd run it. Maybe with a bit bigger penalty, but shrug. Generally I just make sure that whatever alternative I offer is likely worse than a feat, and I'm pretty safe not invalidating said feat. Even if I do, oh well, we'll run it different the next time. You just had helpful wind conditions that day :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll admit the leap feats feel like action economy tax at a certain level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Player: "Oh man, I don't have anything to shoot or throw. Can I jump and try to hit it in the air?"

GM: "Sure, I'll say that's a 3 action activity and you take a -1 penalty to hit, since you're flailing"

Player: "Nice."

while there are a lot of ways to go with it, and while indeed the ultimate goal of a game is for everyone around to have fun, i believe such approach would be better served in the Advice subforum (with something like "how would you houserule a melee combatant without feat support attacking in midair") rather than the rules subforum.

RAW wise there's little someone can do to circumvent that (which is why it's often desirable for martials to always have at least a ranged weapon alongside their main)

But as always, final arbiter is the GM and how easy he wants to make it for the players to do something required/cool.

While I considered that, I consulted the description of the rules forum before posting. "For discussion of rules, including how a rule works, if a rule exists, or why a rule exists or doesn't exist"

So, this forum isn't just about RAW, it's also about why a rule may not have been written. That is, because it's within the GMs purview to assign action costs to unlisted activities in pursuit of a more fun experience.

"To make calls on the fly, use the following guidelines, which are the same principles the game rules are based on. You might want to keep printouts of these guidelines and the DC guidelines (page 503) for quick reference.

If you don’t know how long a quick task takes, go with 1 action, or 2 actions if a character shouldn’t be able to perform it three times per round.
If you’re not sure what action a task uses, look for the most similar basic action. If you don’t find one, make up an undefined action (page XXX) adding any necessary traits (usually attack, concentrate, manipulate, or move).
When two sides are opposed, have one roll against the other’s DC. Don’t have both sides roll (initiative is the exception to this rule). The character who rolls is usually the one acting (except in the case of saving throws).
If an effect raises or lowers chances of success, grant a +1 circumstance bonus or a –1 circumstance penalty.
If you’re not sure how difficult a significant challenge should be, use the DC for the party’s level.
If you’re making up an effect, creatures should be incapacitated or killed on only a critical success (or for a saving throw, on a critical failure). "

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There is a difference between something being in the rules, and allowing something that should be allowed. Is it in the rules? No, you fall after a jump unless you use a special ability that allows otherwise. Should it be allowed? Probably, it's up to you as the GM. In the end you can always change the rules for your home games.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, I think the rules around when actions happen sequentially are enough of an abstraction to where I'm notsure the rules don't already allow it. But I'd certainly let people get a strike off or a grapple before falling either way.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I think the ready a strike and jump should be a legitimate way of executing the desired non-feat enabled strike. However, I have to admit that since it says your turn ends immediately, it seems like you can't preform the ready, then jump, which triggers your reaction of being within range, to make the attack. So technically by RAW that doesn't appear to be an option.

Of note, if it was allowed, it would be particularly action costly, as ready takes 2 actions to enable a single action used as a reaction.

If you ruled a creature could be considered a potential handhold, you might be able to argue using the grab an edge reaction to interrupt your subsequent fall. But it would by raw require making a reflex save at some appropriate DC, before completing your next action, which by raw would have you likely in a 'climbing' state, which could seriously inhibit your action(attack) choices.

I think I'd be inclined to instead allow a variant that would be a cross between a ready and a catch-an-edge. Basically, allowing them to execute their jump (one or two action) and then spend their reaction at the top of their jump, to interrupt their fall to make a strike or other attack.

As long as they don't start trying to abuse such a ruling I think that is how I'd allow it. But that wouldn't be RAW. Allowing a jump/reaction/Grapple seems very much like it should be viable, and might as a 1 or 2 action jump, 1 reaction (likely requiring a reflex save against the opponents reflex DC), and then requiring a grapple attack action (requiring a roll against their fort DC).

Otherwise, to manage to make an attack without having a hand free sounds like it would require a critical success on a Reflex roll against the target's reflex DC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, it seems cleaner just to say that a leaping attack is a 3-action activity, and that it require a running start (basically, the same limitations as the Long Jump and High Jump rules). For most PCs, unless they get a height advantage they are still severely limited in when to use it.

The Ready action seems intended for the end of your turn and anticipating X coming from something else.

And doing this is flexible and can handle situations where the players get creative: "I jump on top of it from above and grab its neck!" and "I grab and swing on the rope and jump to the other side of the chasm (while still having my Reaction to Grab an Edge)" etc., etc.


But raw yes it means you cannot.

But that's stupid imo. Instead I'd just make it a 3 action from start to finish and you need to make a athletics or acrobatics check to land in your feat at absolute worst

Liberty's Edge

I will have the character make and acrobatics check. If they succeed, I allow the the attack. IF they crit fail, they can't make the attack and they land awkward and flat-footed until the beginning of their turn. If there is another check involved, that could impact their landing as well.

Sovereign Court

Gary Bush wrote:
I will have the character make and acrobatics check. If they succeed, I allow the the attack. IF they crit fail, they can't make the attack and they land awkward and flat-footed until the beginning of their turn. If there is another check involved, that could impact their landing as well.

Why Acrobatics, considering that jumping is done with Atlhetics, and all the jump-related skill feats are Athletics skill feats?


Ready an action to melee strike when an enemy is in range, then leap?

I would think that would work. If you have to High Jump or Long Jump I think it’s fair to say swinging in the middle of those actions wouldn’t normally be doable. To go that far you’re putting your whole body into it and following through the jump - attacking would require specialized training


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Liegence wrote:

Ready an action to melee strike when an enemy is in range, then leap?

I would think that would work.

I'm prettt sure his was mentioned earlier, but the important problem with that idea is that your turn ends when you ready an action, making "then leap" difficult to accomplish. That's why you have individual people's takes on how they would handle the attempt at their own tables, not a RAW-defined option.


Sorry to practice a little thread necromancy, but I figure this might be better than starting a new thread for the exact same issue. Has any recent FAQ, Errata, etc changed the RAW on this?

I'm not the DM in our group but trying to get to the bottom of the situation RAW, but from the above comments seems the RAW is to have to Ready an action to attack then jump? Because if you don't do that (and don't have one of these feats to let you not have to ready) then when you jump to a square adjacent to an enemy above you you start falling if you don't have footing, and you can't take another action until you've finished falling as a consequence of your movement. Does that sum up things correctly? If so, where can I point a player to the rule that falling would happen before they can take their action to attack?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it has changed.

Ready an action and then jumping doesn't work RAW because the Ready action ends your turn immediately even if you have actions left.

For RAW requiring falling before you can Strike:

Simultaneous Actions

Simultaneous Actions wrote:

You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn’t have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another. For example, the Sudden Charge activity states you must Stride twice and then Strike, so you couldn’t use an Interact action to open a door in the middle of the movement, nor could you perform part of the move, make your attack, and then finish the move.

Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.

Though I am also of a mind to allow something to work even if a character doesn't have a feat for it. The idea is simple enough that anyone should be able to do it. The feat should just make it easier or more action-efficient. So choose or create a houserule that a character can use that costs more actions than the feat allows it to be done in.


There seem to be two plausible ways to do this w/o directly conflicting w/ RAW (even if not supported by it either!). As breihauptclan mentioned, Readying is not one of them since your turn always ends with Ready.

One is to leap so close that you fall while near the enemy, then use Grab an Edge Reaction to hold on, then attack.
The flaw with this are it's reasonable for a GM to say that creatures aren't edges. It'd be weird to express such a thing in English. Though once creatures hit a certain size/shape, one might say the creatures have edges.
Also, one would likely want at least one hand free to hold on while attacking (otherwise falling resumes) which would hinder some builds. Again depends on GM.
And lastly, since the creature likely resists enemies grabbing on, doesn't that mean a Grapple's required? Wouldn't that require a roll? If so that Grab an Edge Reaction is now turning into a quite strong effect of getting a (perhaps weaker?) form of Grapple w/ a mere Reaction.
"You grab at the edge of the gargoyle. It shrugs away because you're trying to grab it and didn't put in enough effort to truly grapple it. You fall."
Personally I wouldn't wager on all those steps connecting in a standard game (i.e. PFS), but in a looser game it'd likely pass.

Two seems a bit sounder albeit still iffy, where you leap to a square in the air. Once you're there, you attack (which causes you to fall, but the attack still initiates up there hence occurs in range of the target). This relies on the narrative flow of technically disconnected action beats, something not all GMs will allow for. I reckon at most one might be allowed a 1-action attack.
The flaw is again that a GM's reasoning might conflict. I might bargain/adjudicate by adding a -2 circumstance penalty on the attack (mirroring flat-footed, but representing the unstable attacker). Plus w/o Catfall, that fall's going to hurt and make you prone, which makes that one attack costly.
This is the argument I'd lean toward with this being the primary question: if I'm midair, can I get a swing off or does falling interrupt actions? It seems to me that until you choose an action, the clock's not running which suggests you could at least attempt.

That said, Sudden Leap (etc.) are pretty awesome feats IMO, especially for low-Dex PCs where for many builds they'd be mandatory to contribute well against some flying skirmishers.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Does the existence of the Sudden Leap feat mean no one else can Strike while jumping? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.