Anyone else bothered by the 3e Jump rules?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:16 am

I am. With a DC equal to the distance covered, a level 1 character can jump almost 30'. Without magic. As long as he has two minutes. Now, I realize that D&D is omgheroicfantasy, and jumping 30' is more heroic than jumping 10', but I find it...grating that such a huge inconsistency exists. Makes me want to fix it.

Agree/disagree?

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:30 am

They probably assume that:

A.) Players aren't going to dump all their points into Jump.
B.) You'll be wearing at least some type of armor that has a check penalty.

Of course, if you specialize in Jump, you're going to be catapulting yourself over the grand canyon by level 10, but that's nothing new to 3.x.

shau · Post by **shau** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:37 am

Honestly whenever I think about jump I just think it needs to be stronger...or not exist as a skill at all. It costs the same to put a skill point in jump as it does to put one in UMD or diplomacy, so you should be getting the same return. That means letting players jump into the stratosphere eventually, or giving them some other incentive for having points there like a damage bonus for leap attack.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:06 am

I don't know what the "two minutes" has to do with anything, because you certainly can't Take 20 on Jump (unless for some reason there was nothing actually dangerous you were jumping over, and you were just jumping around for the hell of it).

And while a shorter jumping distance might be realistic (the 3.0 version that was basically result - 5' was pretty close to RL records, actually), it would make the skill even more marginal than it already is. I mean seriously, this skill is competing with skills like Tumble and Use Magic Device - it better let you do some damn impressive jumping.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:48 am

Technically you could take 20 on a longjump so long as you're just jumping to rcord your maximum distance and not trying to jump a pit or anything. So long as there's no penalty for failure, you can take a 20.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:25 am

Jump is simply too narrow for one skill if its going to be even slightly realistic. 30' isn't worth the skill points as it is. Roll it and other physical stuff into an athletics skill.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:21 pm

Yeah, I'm bothered by jump, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Because it's too bloody weak.

I made a skill feat I'm using in a current game. If it becomes complete ever, I'll post it here.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:00 pm

You can only "take 20" if you take into account that they failed at least 19 times.

So, "taking 20" is a no go for jumping across a pit. You roll and fall or roll and jump across.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:38 pm

Judging__Eagle wrote:You can only "take 20" if you take into account that they failed at least 19 times.

So, "taking 20" is a no go for jumping across a pit. You roll and fall or roll and jump across.

See

RandomCasualty2 wrote:So long as there's no penalty for failure, you can take a 20.

Porrage · Post by **Porrage** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:52 pm

Wait, wasn't there a maximum jump distance based on the character's height? It's been a long time since I played 3e, but I remember something about a maximum jumping distance. The monk was the only class that could jump as far as the skill would allow, it was a high level class ability I believe.

Edit: The way I always did jump rules in 3e, is that the players would always jump a realistic distance, but the farther the jump and other circumstances that come into play increase the DC of the jump skill.

For instance jumping 5 feet isn't hard, but if you're jumping from a pillar to another pillar, both of which are four square inches..... Then you'd have to roll a much higher "jump" check.

That's just the way I do it.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:33 pm

Speaking of rolls, the other thing that bothers me about some physical checks in general in D&D is the fact that the roll produces too much entropy.

A character that can jump 30 ft at maximum shouldn't have an average (take 10) jump of only 21, and a minimum jump of 11. That's just way too much variance. Physical tasks are generally pretty repeatable.

The same thing bothered me about bashing doors too. If you've got +5 strength, a weak door can theoretically hold you for several rounds, even though you're truly mighty. Just sort of sucks.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:53 pm

Minor nitpick: entropy isn't quite the right term for that situation. Entropy is for situations of order decaying into chaos, the production of waste heat, etc. The variance term works, as would "wide range of results".

As for the content of the opinion; that's part of why I've heard arguments for bell-curved resolution in most situations, because rare is the situation where the range of fluctuation that you get with a d20 is appropriate.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:00 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Speaking of rolls, the other thing that bothers me about some physical checks in general in D&D is the fact that the roll produces too much entropy.

A character that can jump 30 ft at maximum shouldn't have an average (take 10) jump of only 21, and a minimum jump of 11. That's just way too much variance. Physical tasks are generally pretty repeatable.

The same thing bothered me about bashing doors too. If you've got +5 strength, a weak door can theoretically hold you for several rounds, even though you're truly mighty. Just sort of sucks.

That's what Taking 10 is for. Even if you're Strongarm McStrong, casually whacking a door may not have the desired effect. If you take the time to line up in front of the door and hit it squarely (taking 10), you'll achieve a much more even result.

If you line up and kick it several times in succession, you've taken 20 - achieved the best possible result you can get.

It's not perfect, but it does help.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:43 pm

virgileso wrote:Minor nitpick: entropy isn't quite the right term for that situation. Entropy is for situations of order decaying into chaos, the production of waste heat, etc. The variance term works, as would "wide range of results".

Yeah, that's true. Entropy wouldn't exactly apply here.

That's what Taking 10 is for. Even if you're Strongarm McStrong, casually whacking a door may not have the desired effect. If you take the time to line up in front of the door and hit it squarely (taking 10), you'll achieve a much more even result.

But take 10 doesn't exactly cover it. I mean. Taking 10 is so weak compared to what you can achieve on your best, it just doesn't make sense. Basically it's saying that an olympic long jumpers average jump is way less than his best jump. Which isn't really true.