|
I'm having a hard time understanding high jump for combat purposes.
Through skill feets it is possible to jump 5 feet vertically with one action and attack with another.
With sudden leap I can do the same thing except that if I want to jump 8 feet vertically the CD would be 8 instead of 30.
My question is about how to jump 8 feet is different from jumping 5 feet in combat. Both of them would still hit flying creatures that are flying 10 feet off the ground?
5 feet jumpe + 5 feet reach = reach 10 fee.
8 feet jump + 5 feet reach = reach 13 feet.
If the creature is flying 15 feet off the ground, neither one nor the other would hit it.
Is there any difference between reaching 10 feet and 13 feet for combat purposes? Or is my math all wrong? If so, could you explain what I'm missing between:
- sudden leap high jump.
-quick jump, poweful leap and high jump + Attack.
That is one interpretation (that I happen to disagree with) for how sudden leap works. Link to former discussion so we don't need to rehash the maximum distance issue.
Now, regarding what the point of jumping 8ft vs 5ft is: in my personal experience GMs are more likely to mention things about height in amounts other than 5ft than they are about 2D movement, since the Grid isn't as easily expressed in 3D as it is in 2D anyway. With that in mind I wouldn't be surprised if they let the 8ft jump be enough to reach something that they formally described as being roughly 15ft above the ground. If you're working 100% on a grid, then I'm not sure how much it really does, though.
I'm having a hard time understanding high jump for combat purposes.
Through skill feets it is possible to jump 5 feet vertically with one action and attack with another.
With sudden leap I can do the same thing except that if I want to jump 8 feet vertically the CD would be 8 instead of 30.
My question is about how to jump 8 feet is different from jumping 5 feet in combat. Both of them would still hit flying creatures that are flying 10 feet off the ground?
5 feet jumpe + 5 feet reach = reach 10 fee.
8 feet jump + 5 feet reach = reach 13 feet.If the creature is flying 15 feet off the ground, neither one nor the other would hit it.
Is there any difference between reaching 10 feet and 13 feet for combat purposes? Or is my math all wrong? If so, could you explain what I'm missing between:
- sudden leap high jump.
-quick jump, poweful leap and high jump + Attack.
As far as raw distance is concerned? Not really, unless an encounter setting expressly lists the distance of an object, and even then those aren't really done for precisely the reasons you described: The grid only cares about sections of 5 feet, not sub-sections of 2.5 feet or less, and so on.
But, in regards to your two turn options, the big differences is that Sudden Leap both increases the distance you can High Jump, but also lets you make a Strike on enemies before you start falling. If you decided to Leap, you would instantly start falling at the end of the action, thereby denying you the ability to make a Strike prior to that. Lastly, you would take falling damage from doing the second option based on that distance you fell, compared to Sudden Leap, which prevents that amount so long as you are at the same elevation or less prior to performing the activity. (If you fall to a lower elevation, you would take the full damage as with the second option, though.)
|
|
That is one interpretation (that I happen to disagree with) for how sudden leap works.
First, i did not realize the size of the problem i'm mean wow haha.
I wouldn't be surprised if they let the 8ft jump be enough to reach something that they formally described as being roughly 15ft above the ground.
I see and this is what would probably happen in my game.
But, in regards to your two turn options, the big differences is that Sudden Leap both increases the distance you can High Jump, but also lets you make a Strike on enemies before you start falling. If you decided to Leap, you would instantly start falling at the end of the action, thereby denying you the ability to make a Strike prior to that. Lastly, you would take falling damage from doing the second option based on that distance you fell, compared to Sudden Leap, which prevents that amount so long as you are at the same elevation or less prior to performing the activity. (If you fall to a lower elevation, you would take the full damage as with the second option, though.)
This is a really good point. The fact that if you leap your action ends when you fall to the ground and therefore cannot attack while in the air adds to the fact that it prevents fall damage in a normal high leap.
Personally, if I were the GM and a player asked me to jump and attack, regardless of whether it was done with 3 actions or two, I would allow it even without the sudden leap, but that is another story.
I hadn't thought about it and your point really validates the sudden leap. The difference between 5 feet and 8 feet in combat is probably how you guys said it would be a more subjective issue.
That is one interpretation (that I happen to disagree with) for how sudden leap works.First, i did not realize the size of the problem i'm mean wow haha.
I wouldn't be surprised if they let the 8ft jump be enough to reach something that they formally described as being roughly 15ft above the ground.I see and this is what would probably happen in my game.
But, in regards to your two turn options, the big differences is that Sudden Leap both increases the distance you can High Jump, but also lets you make a Strike on enemies before you start falling. If you decided to Leap, you would instantly start falling at the end of the action, thereby denying you the ability to make a Strike prior to that. Lastly, you would take falling damage from doing the second option based on that distance you fell, compared to Sudden Leap, which prevents that amount so long as you are at the same elevation or less prior to performing the activity. (If you fall to a lower elevation, you would take the full damage as with the second option, though.)This is a really good point. The fact that if you leap your action ends when you fall to the ground and therefore cannot attack while in the air adds to the fact that it prevents fall damage in a normal high leap.
Personally, if I were the GM and a player asked me to jump and attack, regardless of whether it was done with 3 actions or two, I would allow it even without the sudden leap, but that is another story.
I hadn't thought about it and your point really validates the sudden leap. The difference between 5 feet and 8 feet in combat is probably how you guys said it would be a more subjective issue.
I allow jump and attack as well. Making a character use a feat to gain an ability that should be an inherent part of jumping was a bad game design decision in my opinion. Any character that trained Athletics or Acrobatics as a combat adventurer would train to jump and attack. No feat should be required.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allow jump and attack as well. Making a character use a feat to gain an ability that should be an inherent part of jumping was a bad game design decision in my opinion. Any character that trained Athletics or Acrobatics as a combat adventurer would train to jump and attack. No feat should be required.
I wouldn't call it bad design, because I don't think that's the point of the feat, and it's perfectly reasonable to allow such a thing in general. The existence of a feat that gives specific rules about how to do something (and even improves your standard abilities to do said thing) doesn't mean that without the feat it's impossible. Let's take friendly toss, for example. If someone wanted to do something like this without the feat then I see no reason to make it impossible as long as the strength and relative weight of the players involved is taken into account, but I guarantee you it would be way weaker than what friendly toss allows you to do for just 2 actions: not only making the toss a whole 30ft, but also not triggering reactions, being able to attack as a reaction, and even ignoring fall damage. Like, think about that for a second, you can friendly toss someone up or down a 30ft cliff and they'd land on their feet not taking any damage AND be able to attack an enemy they land next to.
The thing I found most anoying regarding the leaping and jumping rules is that you need to figure out the interaction in between a multitude of feats and features very carefully, respectively determine if they supersede each other and which limits can be raised / improved and by how much.
Like, Leap vs High Jump vs Powerful Leap vs Raging Athlete vs Sudden Leap.
I allow jump and attack as well. Making a character use a feat to gain an ability that should be an inherent part of jumping was a bad game design decision in my opinion. Any character that trained Athletics or Acrobatics as a combat adventurer would train to jump and attack. No feat should be required.I wouldn't call it bad design, because I don't think that's the point of the feat, and it's perfectly reasonable to allow such a thing in general. The existence of a feat that gives specific rules about how to do something (and even improves your standard abilities to do said thing) doesn't mean that without the feat it's impossible. Let's take friendly toss, for example. If someone wanted to do something like this without the feat then I see no reason to make it impossible as long as the strength and relative weight of the players involved is taken into account, but I guarantee you it would be way weaker than what friendly toss allows you to do for just 2 actions: not only making the toss a whole 30ft, but also not triggering reactions, being able to attack as a reaction, and even ignoring fall damage. Like, think about that for a second, you can friendly toss someone up or down a 30ft cliff and they'd land on their feet not taking any damage AND be able to attack an enemy they land next to.
It creates the idea in the mind's PF players that something can only be done if they have the feat. It creates needless arguments over rules, when somethings should be integrated as skill uses.