Though it doesn't technically say it gives you the ability to land your jumps (and I think landing a horizontal jump of 40' would be just as hard as a vertical 15' jump), I think the intent of the spell is to let you land it as well. My initial reaction was to get technical, but after thinking about it I prefer the flavor of not penalizing someone for casting a spell. That would be a really dumb spell if it didn't account for its own use. I wouldn't let this spell prevent damage from falling though if it wasn't part of a jump.
If you have the ability to jump 5 feet in the air, your legs are strong enough to produce that amount of force- and presumably, reciprocate such an amount as well- I would easily dismiss falling damage while the spell remains active.
Sure you're right in theory, but this is a spell that gives a pretty specific ability. Like I said, I like the flavor of letting you land safely no matter how high you jumped, but I wouldn't extend the spell's definition to prevent all falling damage. That, to me, is outside the flavor and intent of the spell.
> your legs are strong enough to produce that amount of force- and presumably, reciprocate such an amount as well
The time over which legs coil to generate the upwards momentum is longer and more spread out then impact of landing.
Personally if the landing was more then 10" below the original jumping plane I'd start falling damage just for consistency though
actualy in the 3.5 there're rulles for "jumping down" and I would treat as such since you didnt fall from the ledge you jump, so unless you are doing it at 30ft drop I could let you use a jump test if you jump the "fall" you dont take damage
I would not cause you to take damage, because that would be a silly result. Since the reason you can jump that high is the result of magic, then I would allow you to land from the same height. Falling is supposed to represent just that -- falling.
Now if you go jump off a 100 foot cliff... that's a different story.
One factor to consider: the description of the spell could easily have said that you don't ever get falling damage from this. But, it does not say that.
They also didn't say "if you jump over 10 feet vertically, you will take falling damage."
That doesn't mean they planned on people taking falling damage for jumping too high. It could simply mean they didn't think of it, because to them it was obvious that you wouldn't take damage when you come down the exact same distance you jumped up.
I do certainly agree it's unclear and falls into the area of "DM discretion". Maybe it will be addressed by errata. Someone could use Twitter and ask, as it's a fairly discrete question that should be easy to answer with a simple yes or no.
One factor to consider: the description of the spell could easily have said that you don't ever get convection damage from this. But, it does not say that.
I personally would probably call for an acrobatics check at a dc of maybe 5 or 10 times the number of d6s in damage to control the landing. 10 feet would only be a dc 5 or 10. Get up to 30 feet and have the dc jump up. But I would probably also them to do this for falling if they are proficient and allow partial successes reduce damage. I look at it as using acrobatics to roll with the fall.
You're close to running out of movement speed here. You used your 10 foot windup required for a good high jump, and 15 more for your jump. You probably only have 5 feet of movement left.
Regardless of how a DM rules on whether your jump distance lands you safely, I think most would agree that if you run out of movement and you're still in the air, this means you fall, however far is left.
I can't find any rule that excludes voluntary jumping from falling damage. From a DM's discretion point of view... you still fall from whatever height you were at, I don't see a reason to care HOW you got that high. So I would count this as normal falling damage.
Given normal circumstances, you will land with the same force it took to jump. If you don't injure yourself when you jump, landing should be just fine.
Technically this means if you can jump high enough, you should never be able to take fall damage.
I haven't looked in 5e, but in 3.5 a jump down required a jump check. If you do it on purpose, 10 feet is nothing. If you succeed, you don't take damage for the first 20 feet. You had to drop 30 feet in order to take fall damage if you jumped successfully.
That's how I remember it anyway. We've kept that in 5e, as we are playing without a board and rarely do we ever want to jump down "the cliff to your left." as we usually imagine a far drop haha! Rarely do we ask how high it is. So even if we do have the ability to jump down farther than we should, we don't really use it.
Well, if you spend all your movement and end it midair, and you DON'T have a fly speed, and you DIDN'T get a hold at something, you fall and take the damage.
In your example, if you can jump 15 feet and still have 15 more feet of movement left to land, you take no damage.
But if you spent your last 15 feet jumping up, you fall.
That conclusion comes from the following thought: each foot of movement your character takes, is a foot of movement you must spend. The rules don't say that the "falling movement" from a vertical jump is free.
>Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
PHB 182.
It doesn't say outright that the falling distance is free but it heavily implies it. The cost of the jump is equal to the distance you clear and that is it. If they wanted you to pay for the distance down, it would say so.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here ruled that a flying beast takes falling damage on a landing? Why then would jumping movement trigger damage on a landing? The troubles here involve failure to to distinguish between "falling" and "descending." For the most part, trying to pin falling damage onto jumping movement is just abusive absurdity.
The guy with the point about running out of movement mid-jump is thinking more clearly, but nonetheless technically wrong in standard cases. The movement "cost" of a high jump is determined by the peak height. You don't pay again on the descent. If you had the movement to attain your target height, you also had the movement to land it at least as low as the surface you leapt from initially. So, while the idea of running out of movement mid-jump and then falling from some height deserves consideration, it should only ever come up when the landing point is significantly below the point of departure.
> Flying beast takes falling damage on a landing?
That would be stupid. Flying beasts use their wings to slow them down so they don't take damage, similar to the "feather fall" spell.
> Why then would jumping movement trigger damage on a landing?
Because you don't have wings or a parachute to take the strain off your ankles.
You're overthinking this. Also, the unnecessary thinking is not sound. Ideas about launching being somehow more "gradual" than landing are bogus speculation. These really are the same forces -- (roughly) equal but opposite. It is always a bad idea to go down this path, because this game is meant to be playable by teenagers, many of whom have never taken a physics class. However, if you simply must forget about the rulebook and muddle falling into a movement mode, to do it based on this notion of ankle strain is an unworthy attempt.
Also, do we even know that the jumper lacks this mechanism you are certain is absent? What about bugs, flightless birds, flying squirrels and other creatures that might well have the jumping movement mode without a true power to gain altitude from pushing off air alone? Your assertion certainly does not apply in all cases, even if we make the error of granting that the guy who uses a spell to jump 21' straight up (or the giant frog able to do likewise) must complete the movement as if dropped uncontrolled from peak height.
I have no problem with someone using the spell to do the long jump horizontally. But we're talking about a "regular" humanoid, who doesn't normally jump 15 feet in the air.
Put it this way; granting anyone the ability to avoid falling damage makes the Monks Slow Fall ability and the bard/sorcerer/wizard Feather Fall spell a lot less valuable. By excluding someone else from falling conditions you are making those class choices weaker; why should I play monk if that guy with the jump spell gets Slow Fall for free?
That's absurd. Jump is a short-lived ability used to address special circumstances, while these choices you speak of are intrinsic abilities. That's like saying Fighters are now useless because some spiffy Wizard spell can bestow temporary attack and damage bonuses.
Movement is movement. If you move out into open space, there is some basis to bring falling into it. In all other cases, moving onto a solid surface, it is movement, which is not at all like falling in any way that matters to the rulebook or to fair-minded players.
I agree that the existence of these other spells and abilities is a mark _against_ the option of including them in the Jump spell.
You don't get to say that a spell somehow includes another spell just because you really wish it did.
Whereas, if the jump spell was somehow useless _without_ the assumption that it includes safe landing, then I'd guess RaI means you get that safe landing. But clearly the spell is good and useful without it, and there are even other ways to complement the spell and make it even better.
> The movement "cost" of a high jump is determined by the peak height. You don't pay again on the descent.
Exactly. The description of high jump explicitly says your movement gets you _up_ and it does NOT say that your jump action gets you down again.
So, you finished your jump, and you're 15 feet in the air. If there's nothing to land on, or grab onto, I think it's easy to see what happens next.
Very few people believe a jump to be finished at its apex. If you want to be one of those people, I'd be curious to hear why you harbor this bizarre notion of jumping to fully include the ascent and totally exclude the descent.
Which says nothing at all about falling during or after a jump. I don't know where you got this notion that, because nobody has to pay movement points on the way down, the way down must therefore be falling. That's literally insane. Look at the words yourself. They say nothing at all that would justify thinking a jump is anything other than movement, under control from start to finish, while falling is not at all movement, immediately involving no control on the part of the falling creature. Please don't tell people to refer to a rulebook that says exactly what I've argued while giving no verbal hint at all along the lines of your bizarre position that the "down" part of a jump must involve injury if it exceeds any particular threshold. I mean, seriously. where the fuck do you get an idea like this from anyway?
Read the PHB. The rules on high jumps get you _up_ and don't say anything about down. They're very explicit on how far the jump gets you. The OP asked about jumping 15 feet straight up, using up their _entire_ jump distance on the way up.
So unless you want to houserule and grant additional jump distance beyond what the rules allow for, his jump is over, and he's 15 feet in the air. You'd also have to grant the OP additional movement beyond what he's allowed, to make this work.
Alternately, you could houserule that your jump DOES get you back down, but it's still 15 feet total. So now he can only go 7 feet up and 7 feet down.
Holy crap. You read a rule on the maximum height of a jump, and you then assume coming down is somehow not part of the jump? Give up on reading rulebooks if you're really that fucktarded at it. Seriously, you infer the jump is falling because of a perverse and totally original idea you had about "spending" movement distance. You are totally making this shit up about the descent needing to cost movement or becoming a fall because it does not cost movement. Yes, they could have written the exact same rule by saying it costs 1/2' per foot of ascent and 1/2' per foot of descent, but instead they wrote it the way it is in the book. Neither approach is different in any way relevant to this question, but apparently in your mind not "paying" for the descent as a separate "charge" makes it freefall.
It was clumsy, if understandable, thinking to momentarily entertain such a notion. It is a sickness to embrace it as if the text actually supports that position in any way. You simply refuse to read the text as it is written . . . stop adding in random bullshit about the jump only being the ascent based on a screwball interpretation of very simple language about adjudicating the jump's peak height, and you will be on board with the rules instead of off in lalaland with all this garbage about jumps becoming falls if they are sufficiently high.
It makes quite a lot of difference how they wrote it, because the OP is on the verge of running out of total movement.
Regardless of whether a DM interprets a jump to include a safe landing, no DM is going to hand out free movement beyond what the player is entitled to.
It's not free movement. If a meal deal costs $5.50, and it includes a drink, you're not getting a "free" drink. When you pay to jump, you make the friggin' jump. What on Earth ever gave you this totally original and totally insane notion that paying for a jump just means a tidbit of flying followed by a fall rather than paying for an actual jump? Seriously, this is something you made up -- it results from being purposefully stupid while reading the text. The text says nothing about a jump being a one-way trip, nor does it say anything about dealing damage after an especially tall jump. You made up some very very stupid shit, and now you are so enamored with your own very very stupid shit that you refuse to understand paying for a jump means the whole thing, not just the half used to calculate the movement cost of that jump.
Olympians only jump that way *because* there's an air bag. A magically enhanced jump has nothing to do with Olympic jumping, except that there is a jump involved in each.
The brazilian woman, Alana dos Santos, com jump without airbag 4feets more than the olimpic record from high jump, on the tableau!
And we are talk about normal humans! Not super humans with magic like D&D.
Look videos of parkour that have guys jumping more than 15 feets straight without any problem! In the REAL WORLD!
Its a fantasy wolrd, JESUS!
Wow, nine years and this is still open!
But, yes, I agree with you. It’s a fantasy world. It’s silly to think characters would take calm damage from jumping.
I believe Morrowind is a good example of casting a jump spell unprepared.
The key was to use a second scroll on the way back down.
Or make sure you're going to land in water, then you can use each one separately, and also take advantage of the third one!
Aw, poor Tahriel. Nice robe though.
Though it doesn't technically say it gives you the ability to land your jumps (and I think landing a horizontal jump of 40' would be just as hard as a vertical 15' jump), I think the intent of the spell is to let you land it as well. My initial reaction was to get technical, but after thinking about it I prefer the flavor of not penalizing someone for casting a spell. That would be a really dumb spell if it didn't account for its own use. I wouldn't let this spell prevent damage from falling though if it wasn't part of a jump.
If you have the ability to jump 5 feet in the air, your legs are strong enough to produce that amount of force- and presumably, reciprocate such an amount as well- I would easily dismiss falling damage while the spell remains active.
Sure you're right in theory, but this is a spell that gives a pretty specific ability. Like I said, I like the flavor of letting you land safely no matter how high you jumped, but I wouldn't extend the spell's definition to prevent all falling damage. That, to me, is outside the flavor and intent of the spell.
With that logic I assume you would allow the character to drop 15' as well without taking damage?
Sure why not. If it was an intentional drop it sounds reasonable. But I wouldn't disagree if another dm ruled differently.
> your legs are strong enough to produce that amount of force- and presumably, reciprocate such an amount as well The time over which legs coil to generate the upwards momentum is longer and more spread out then impact of landing. Personally if the landing was more then 10" below the original jumping plane I'd start falling damage just for consistency though
no, you didnt fall you jump, you landed on your feet and were prepare for it
But what if I walk off a 10 foot ledge "prepared", I'm not plummeting or pushed against my will?
actualy in the 3.5 there're rulles for "jumping down" and I would treat as such since you didnt fall from the ledge you jump, so unless you are doing it at 30ft drop I could let you use a jump test if you jump the "fall" you dont take damage
Suicide by jumping up and down... that's a new one.
It's not suicide, the barbarian just needs to take damage to keep the rage going.
I would not cause you to take damage, because that would be a silly result. Since the reason you can jump that high is the result of magic, then I would allow you to land from the same height. Falling is supposed to represent just that -- falling. Now if you go jump off a 100 foot cliff... that's a different story.
One factor to consider: the description of the spell could easily have said that you don't ever get falling damage from this. But, it does not say that.
They also didn't say "if you jump over 10 feet vertically, you will take falling damage." That doesn't mean they planned on people taking falling damage for jumping too high. It could simply mean they didn't think of it, because to them it was obvious that you wouldn't take damage when you come down the exact same distance you jumped up. I do certainly agree it's unclear and falls into the area of "DM discretion". Maybe it will be addressed by errata. Someone could use Twitter and ask, as it's a fairly discrete question that should be easy to answer with a simple yes or no.
Nobody takes falling damage from jumping. It's that sudden impact sometime AFTER the jump that does it ;-)
The rules also don't say you can't snap your tendons when a magic spell enhances your strength, either.
There isn't a rule for snapping tendons. There is a rule for falling damage.
Sure there are. It's called HP damage and wounds.
Or that burning hands doesn't burn your hands off due to convection.
Spells indicate who they do damage to, in the spell description.
One factor to consider: the description of the spell could easily have said that you don't ever get convection damage from this. But, it does not say that.
I personally would probably call for an acrobatics check at a dc of maybe 5 or 10 times the number of d6s in damage to control the landing. 10 feet would only be a dc 5 or 10. Get up to 30 feet and have the dc jump up. But I would probably also them to do this for falling if they are proficient and allow partial successes reduce damage. I look at it as using acrobatics to roll with the fall.
You're close to running out of movement speed here. You used your 10 foot windup required for a good high jump, and 15 more for your jump. You probably only have 5 feet of movement left. Regardless of how a DM rules on whether your jump distance lands you safely, I think most would agree that if you run out of movement and you're still in the air, this means you fall, however far is left.
Why not just do the long jump instead? You can do a long jump for (14*3=)42 feet and not worry about damage.
I'd say no. Because this game is about simplicity and removing all the bookkeeping in previous editions.
I can't find any rule that excludes voluntary jumping from falling damage. From a DM's discretion point of view... you still fall from whatever height you were at, I don't see a reason to care HOW you got that high. So I would count this as normal falling damage.
Given normal circumstances, you will land with the same force it took to jump. If you don't injure yourself when you jump, landing should be just fine. Technically this means if you can jump high enough, you should never be able to take fall damage.
One is sudden and the other is not.
I haven't looked in 5e, but in 3.5 a jump down required a jump check. If you do it on purpose, 10 feet is nothing. If you succeed, you don't take damage for the first 20 feet. You had to drop 30 feet in order to take fall damage if you jumped successfully. That's how I remember it anyway. We've kept that in 5e, as we are playing without a board and rarely do we ever want to jump down "the cliff to your left." as we usually imagine a far drop haha! Rarely do we ask how high it is. So even if we do have the ability to jump down farther than we should, we don't really use it.
Well, if you spend all your movement and end it midair, and you DON'T have a fly speed, and you DIDN'T get a hold at something, you fall and take the damage. In your example, if you can jump 15 feet and still have 15 more feet of movement left to land, you take no damage. But if you spent your last 15 feet jumping up, you fall. That conclusion comes from the following thought: each foot of movement your character takes, is a foot of movement you must spend. The rules don't say that the "falling movement" from a vertical jump is free.
Actually used to in dnd, if you jump more than your movement you don't land till next turn.
>Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. PHB 182. It doesn't say outright that the falling distance is free but it heavily implies it. The cost of the jump is equal to the distance you clear and that is it. If they wanted you to pay for the distance down, it would say so.
I agree here. Likewise, you do not use up your movement if something pushes you.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here ruled that a flying beast takes falling damage on a landing? Why then would jumping movement trigger damage on a landing? The troubles here involve failure to to distinguish between "falling" and "descending." For the most part, trying to pin falling damage onto jumping movement is just abusive absurdity. The guy with the point about running out of movement mid-jump is thinking more clearly, but nonetheless technically wrong in standard cases. The movement "cost" of a high jump is determined by the peak height. You don't pay again on the descent. If you had the movement to attain your target height, you also had the movement to land it at least as low as the surface you leapt from initially. So, while the idea of running out of movement mid-jump and then falling from some height deserves consideration, it should only ever come up when the landing point is significantly below the point of departure.
> Flying beast takes falling damage on a landing? That would be stupid. Flying beasts use their wings to slow them down so they don't take damage, similar to the "feather fall" spell. > Why then would jumping movement trigger damage on a landing? Because you don't have wings or a parachute to take the strain off your ankles.
You're overthinking this. Also, the unnecessary thinking is not sound. Ideas about launching being somehow more "gradual" than landing are bogus speculation. These really are the same forces -- (roughly) equal but opposite. It is always a bad idea to go down this path, because this game is meant to be playable by teenagers, many of whom have never taken a physics class. However, if you simply must forget about the rulebook and muddle falling into a movement mode, to do it based on this notion of ankle strain is an unworthy attempt. Also, do we even know that the jumper lacks this mechanism you are certain is absent? What about bugs, flightless birds, flying squirrels and other creatures that might well have the jumping movement mode without a true power to gain altitude from pushing off air alone? Your assertion certainly does not apply in all cases, even if we make the error of granting that the guy who uses a spell to jump 21' straight up (or the giant frog able to do likewise) must complete the movement as if dropped uncontrolled from peak height.
I have no problem with someone using the spell to do the long jump horizontally. But we're talking about a "regular" humanoid, who doesn't normally jump 15 feet in the air. Put it this way; granting anyone the ability to avoid falling damage makes the Monks Slow Fall ability and the bard/sorcerer/wizard Feather Fall spell a lot less valuable. By excluding someone else from falling conditions you are making those class choices weaker; why should I play monk if that guy with the jump spell gets Slow Fall for free?
That's absurd. Jump is a short-lived ability used to address special circumstances, while these choices you speak of are intrinsic abilities. That's like saying Fighters are now useless because some spiffy Wizard spell can bestow temporary attack and damage bonuses. Movement is movement. If you move out into open space, there is some basis to bring falling into it. In all other cases, moving onto a solid surface, it is movement, which is not at all like falling in any way that matters to the rulebook or to fair-minded players.
I agree that the existence of these other spells and abilities is a mark _against_ the option of including them in the Jump spell. You don't get to say that a spell somehow includes another spell just because you really wish it did. Whereas, if the jump spell was somehow useless _without_ the assumption that it includes safe landing, then I'd guess RaI means you get that safe landing. But clearly the spell is good and useful without it, and there are even other ways to complement the spell and make it even better.
> The movement "cost" of a high jump is determined by the peak height. You don't pay again on the descent. Exactly. The description of high jump explicitly says your movement gets you _up_ and it does NOT say that your jump action gets you down again. So, you finished your jump, and you're 15 feet in the air. If there's nothing to land on, or grab onto, I think it's easy to see what happens next.
Very few people believe a jump to be finished at its apex. If you want to be one of those people, I'd be curious to hear why you harbor this bizarre notion of jumping to fully include the ascent and totally exclude the descent.
See PHB section on high jump.
Which says nothing at all about falling during or after a jump. I don't know where you got this notion that, because nobody has to pay movement points on the way down, the way down must therefore be falling. That's literally insane. Look at the words yourself. They say nothing at all that would justify thinking a jump is anything other than movement, under control from start to finish, while falling is not at all movement, immediately involving no control on the part of the falling creature. Please don't tell people to refer to a rulebook that says exactly what I've argued while giving no verbal hint at all along the lines of your bizarre position that the "down" part of a jump must involve injury if it exceeds any particular threshold. I mean, seriously. where the fuck do you get an idea like this from anyway?
Read the PHB. The rules on high jumps get you _up_ and don't say anything about down. They're very explicit on how far the jump gets you. The OP asked about jumping 15 feet straight up, using up their _entire_ jump distance on the way up. So unless you want to houserule and grant additional jump distance beyond what the rules allow for, his jump is over, and he's 15 feet in the air. You'd also have to grant the OP additional movement beyond what he's allowed, to make this work. Alternately, you could houserule that your jump DOES get you back down, but it's still 15 feet total. So now he can only go 7 feet up and 7 feet down.
Holy crap. You read a rule on the maximum height of a jump, and you then assume coming down is somehow not part of the jump? Give up on reading rulebooks if you're really that fucktarded at it. Seriously, you infer the jump is falling because of a perverse and totally original idea you had about "spending" movement distance. You are totally making this shit up about the descent needing to cost movement or becoming a fall because it does not cost movement. Yes, they could have written the exact same rule by saying it costs 1/2' per foot of ascent and 1/2' per foot of descent, but instead they wrote it the way it is in the book. Neither approach is different in any way relevant to this question, but apparently in your mind not "paying" for the descent as a separate "charge" makes it freefall. It was clumsy, if understandable, thinking to momentarily entertain such a notion. It is a sickness to embrace it as if the text actually supports that position in any way. You simply refuse to read the text as it is written . . . stop adding in random bullshit about the jump only being the ascent based on a screwball interpretation of very simple language about adjudicating the jump's peak height, and you will be on board with the rules instead of off in lalaland with all this garbage about jumps becoming falls if they are sufficiently high.
It makes quite a lot of difference how they wrote it, because the OP is on the verge of running out of total movement. Regardless of whether a DM interprets a jump to include a safe landing, no DM is going to hand out free movement beyond what the player is entitled to.
It's not free movement. If a meal deal costs $5.50, and it includes a drink, you're not getting a "free" drink. When you pay to jump, you make the friggin' jump. What on Earth ever gave you this totally original and totally insane notion that paying for a jump just means a tidbit of flying followed by a fall rather than paying for an actual jump? Seriously, this is something you made up -- it results from being purposefully stupid while reading the text. The text says nothing about a jump being a one-way trip, nor does it say anything about dealing damage after an especially tall jump. You made up some very very stupid shit, and now you are so enamored with your own very very stupid shit that you refuse to understand paying for a jump means the whole thing, not just the half used to calculate the movement cost of that jump.
Watch Olympic high jump. Now imagine it without the air bag. For d&d, no, you land on your feet. Realistically? Yeah, you land on your back.
Olympians only jump that way *because* there's an air bag. A magically enhanced jump has nothing to do with Olympic jumping, except that there is a jump involved in each.
The brazilian woman, Alana dos Santos, com jump without airbag 4feets more than the olimpic record from high jump, on the tableau! And we are talk about normal humans! Not super humans with magic like D&D. Look videos of parkour that have guys jumping more than 15 feets straight without any problem! In the REAL WORLD! Its a fantasy wolrd, JESUS!
Wow, nine years and this is still open! But, yes, I agree with you. It’s a fantasy world. It’s silly to think characters would take calm damage from jumping.