Hi, I'm a fairly experienced D&D player and I had a question about the Rabbit Hop feature from Harengons. The feature says that it lets you jump a number of feet equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus without provoking opportunity attacks as a bonus action.
Now here's my dilemma: I plan to make a Harengon Drunken Master for a game I'll be joining soon. If my math is correct, at level 17 at least I'll have the ability to jump 30 feet as a bonus action with RH (not factoring in the likes of Step of the Wind or the Jump spell), but I came across a small hole in my plan: fall damage.
So here's my question: If my Harengon jumps let's say 10 feet off the ground and then 10 feet horizontally, would he take fall damage or would he not because the feature works differently compared to rules for high jump?
I think I wouldn't play that a creature can take fall damage while actively jumping and covering the distance allowed by that jump. Sure you can jump down a 30' cliff without taking fall damage using your 30' RH, but if you "jump" down a 40' cliff, you're taking 4d6 fall damage from the entire height.
I tend to assume that fall damage is for when you can't prevent it in some way (like jumping or levitating), or when you're caught off guard by the fall and didn't jump.
This is entirely my opinion on how I'd run it based solely on my thoughts and a tweet saying a rogue should be able to jump off of a 10' fence without taking fall damage.
Well at 17th level monk (if you didn’t multiclass) you can reduce your fall damage by 85 points by using your reaction. But personally I think if you are jumping under your own power then you don’t take damage. You are jumping not falling. “Jumping” off of a cliff I would consider falling, however.
That's what I was thinking. Basically depending on the scenario, RH wouldn't cause fall damage as long as the fall isn't too much farther than what the RH can account for. I at least wanted a second opinion on the matter because I encountered a similar problem with a grung character my friend played. The DM of that game ruled it differently and it still doesn't sit right with me. So that was why this was a question I had about Harengon and how they worked compared to Grung
Thank you for the feedback! It helps to have a bit of clarity for these types of scenarios
The DM has the ability to make those rulings, though certainly the designers disagree. The falling rules only say what happens at the end of a fall. If your dm rules that jumping is the same as falling, then that's how it is in their game.
There's not a lot to do to change their mind, and making it into a rules argument isn't going to benefit anyone.
So I would mention to the DM that it would be an odd evolutionary adaptation to be able to jump a distance or height they are incapable of landing without injuring themselves. I can’t think of a single animal in the real world that can’t land their jumps safely. Would be absolutely useless way to escape predators.
But in the end they make the call and you have to abide by it.
This is something I have been wondering about myself, especially when compounded with dragging a grappled target with you for your jump.
For example, the Grapple rules tell us that our speed is halved when moving while grappling a creature. But are the jump distances halved?
And more related to the original topic of this thread is who takes damage if the jump height exceeds 10 feet? Both creatures, just the grapple victim, or neither?
I'm curious about the situation in which you want to jump those distances? Additionally, if you fall 10 feet and take 1d6 fall damage, so what? You're lvl 17, no big deal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
But personally I think if you are jumping under your own power then you don’t take damage. You are jumping not falling.
How does the ground know the difference?
RAW you would take damage. Gravity (or whatever its D&D equivalent is) works the same no matter what you do accelerate towards the ground.
The difference is not the ground but rather your legs.
You magically get different legs depending on if you are falling or if you are jumping? Cool!
If you step forward, even when you cannot see your feet, you move forward in a much more stable manner than if some one or some other force pushes you forward. When you jump, it is a much more controlled movement than free-fall. If your legs are powerful enough to propel you upwards against gravity, they are powerful enough to absorb the impact of a similar height landing.
No, not really. That's not how things work.
And as for RAW, there is nothing in the jumping rules linking them to the falling rules.
Well, except for the fact that as soon as you aren't moving upwards you are moving downwards. Ie falling.
Beyond your max high jump, I would say you would take falling damage. Nothing in jumping describes the landing as 'falling' nor is it plain English to describe it so short of jumping off a cliff or something other than landing from the height one can normally jump.
So if I jump of a cliff I'm suddenly immune to fall damage? Sweet!
But personally I think if you are jumping under your own power then you don’t take damage. You are jumping not falling.
How does the ground know the difference?
RAW you would take damage. Gravity (or whatever its D&D equivalent is) works the same no matter what you do accelerate towards the ground.
The difference is not the ground but rather your legs.
You magically get different legs depending on if you are falling or if you are jumping? Cool!
If you step forward, even when you cannot see your feet, you move forward in a much more stable manner than if some one or some other force pushes you forward. When you jump, it is a much more controlled movement than free-fall. If your legs are powerful enough to propel you upwards against gravity, they are powerful enough to absorb the impact of a similar height landing.
No, not really. That's not how things work.
And as for RAW, there is nothing in the jumping rules linking them to the falling rules.
Well, except for the fact that as soon as you aren't moving upwards you are moving downwards. Ie falling.
Beyond your max high jump, I would say you would take falling damage. Nothing in jumping describes the landing as 'falling' nor is it plain English to describe it so short of jumping off a cliff or something other than landing from the height one can normally jump.
So if I jump of a cliff I'm suddenly immune to fall damage? Sweet!
You have the same legs. It is how prepared you are to use them that is different. And if you jump off a cliff, most of the fall is not going to be related to the actual jump. It may well be beyond what you are capable of handling safely. I addressed this already with the bolded portion.
Since you have the same legs there is literally no difference between jumping ten feet into the air or falling ten feet. The downward trajectory of a jump is a fall. The fact that you can jump a certain height doesn't mean that you can safely fall the same distance. The force you have to absorb is exactly the same regardless of what initiates the downward acceleration.
Yes, this becomes silly when we get to the sometimes superhuman jumping heights that dnd characters can perform. That said, RAW doesn't make any kind of difference. If you want an example that illustrates this, imagine a character that for some reason can fly, levitate or hover and does so ten feet above the ground. For some reason they choose to end the effect that suspends them above the ground, thus causing a ten feet fall. Even though they are perfectly aware of this and thus should be able to prepare their legs for the landing they will still, according to the rules, take fall damage. Now take the exact same character that for some reason can jump ten feet into the air. After they've jumped upwards they will start falling downwards. Same legs, same falling damage.
As Wysperra pointed out, at level 17 the damage is negligible. Especially for a monk.
You have the same legs. It is how prepared you are to use them that is different. And if you jump off a cliff, most of the fall is not going to be related to the actual jump. It may well be beyond what you are capable of handling safely. I addressed this already with the bolded portion.
Since you have the same legs there is literally no difference between jumping ten feet into the air or falling ten feet. The downward trajectory of a jump is a fall. The fact that you can jump a certain height doesn't mean that you can safely fall the same distance. The force you have to absorb is exactly the same regardless of what initiates the downward acceleration.
Yes, this becomes silly when we get to the sometimes superhuman jumping heights that dnd characters can perform. That said, RAW doesn't make any kind of difference. If you want an example that illustrates this, imagine a character that for some reason can fly, levitate or hover and does so ten feet above the ground. For some reason they choose to end the effect that suspends them above the ground, thus causing a ten feet fall. Even though they are perfectly aware of this and thus should be able to prepare their legs for the landing they will still, according to the rules, take fall damage. Now take the exact same character that for some reason can jump ten feet into the air. After they've jumped upwards they will start falling downwards. Same legs, same falling damage.
As Wysperra pointed out, at level 17 the damage is negligible. Especially for a monk.
Since you have the same legs, you should move the same when pushed as when walking? I don't think so. Having the same legs does not mean being able to use them equally in all situations.
Where are the rules concering leg movement when fall and jumping? You can literally hurt yourself from jump roping.
And yes, in a heroic fantasy setting, superhuman things are known to happen. Conflating rules, though, is not helpful. Have you considered that, by your logic, horizontal jumps are impossible? According to the falling rules, falls are instantaneous. So the second your feet leave the ground, under the falling rules, they instantaneously land again.
That's not my logic, nice strawmanning. But yes, there are many rules in D&D that doesn't make any sense.
That is clearly absurd. Instead of considering the falling rules to apply, consider the jumping rules as a specific exception to the falling rules. If you jump, you can travel up and/or forward up to the specified distance safely. If there is something there safe to land on, then that is a safe landing. This, no more, no less.
Except that you literally can't. Even people in the real world can do standing high jumps that can potentially cause injuries. There is nothing that says that accelerating downwards from a jump is any different than accelerating downwards from a fall. The speed of which you accelerate is exactly the same. The force of the impact is exactly the same. Sure, that's just real-world physics and isn't necessarily applicable to a fantasy game but there is nothing in the rules that excplicitly states that those physics doesn't apply. The jumping rules kind of implies this, but there's nothing RAW that says it does.
If there is a deadfall there, you fall from that point, taking appropriate damage. If you jump onto a spike, the mere fact you jumped does not save you from the spike. If you jump into a pool of lava, the fact that you jumped does not save you from the lava.
What has this to do with anything? Please stay on topic.
And yes, a monk can reduce falling damage based on their level, making longer falls safer for them, but that does not change the jumping rules nor does it make the jumping rules more dangerous for non-monks.
Except that it does. Monks have a special ability called slow fall which makes them able to mitigate falling damage.
So here's my question: If my Harengon jumps let's say 10 feet off the ground and then 10 feet horizontally, would he take fall damage or would he not because the feature works differently compared to rules for high jump?
There are a few issues here.
First, a long jump in D&D explicitly assumes that the height doesn't matter; mechanically you don't jump in an arc, you jump perfectly horizontally with the ground and never gain any height. If the height does matter (due to an obstacle) then you roll to see if you cleared it, but the actual height is only factored in as a difficulty.
Second, D&D never actually defines what they mean by a fall exactly; only that whatever it is you take damage at the end of it. This means we're left with dictionary definitions but some are far too vague to be useful, such as "a move from a higher to a lower level", but if you use that one then any flight of stairs higher than 10 feet is now a "fall". Personally I think the most useful definition is something like "uncontrolled descent".
With these two things in mind, I'm inclined to assume that a long jump at roughly the same level should always be safe, as it's effectively just a horizontal move that can clear gaps or low obstacles so there is no vertical height involved (mechanically). A high jump is trickier since it's explicitly vertical movement, so if you jump up without grabbing onto a ledge then you may end up in an uncontrolled descent; for me I'd rule on the basis of whether you jumped and missed (in which case maybe a roll for a controlled landing) vs. jumping up to grab at something knowing you'll come back down whether you get it or not.
However, if either type of jump is landing at a lower height than you leapt from, I'd count the descent as uncontrolled and apply fall damage.
In realistic terms, people have survived falls from incredible heights, but they do so by landing in a way that redirects momentum, i.e- landing into a roll, rather than smacking flat and coming to an immediate stop. I think it's fair to assume that someone who can naturally jump as a Harengon does should have some ability to absorb the blow from a normal jump as long as they land correctly (assumed in normal circumstances, checked in trickier ones).
TL;DR In mechanical terms a long jump is just a horizontal move, everything else is really up to your DM.
You have the same legs. It is how prepared you are to use them that is different. And if you jump off a cliff, most of the fall is not going to be related to the actual jump. It may well be beyond what you are capable of handling safely. I addressed this already with the bolded portion.
Since you have the same legs there is literally no difference between jumping ten feet into the air or falling ten feet. The downward trajectory of a jump is a fall. The fact that you can jump a certain height doesn't mean that you can safely fall the same distance. The force you have to absorb is exactly the same regardless of what initiates the downward acceleration.
Yes, this becomes silly when we get to the sometimes superhuman jumping heights that dnd characters can perform. That said, RAW doesn't make any kind of difference. If you want an example that illustrates this, imagine a character that for some reason can fly, levitate or hover and does so ten feet above the ground. For some reason they choose to end the effect that suspends them above the ground, thus causing a ten feet fall. Even though they are perfectly aware of this and thus should be able to prepare their legs for the landing they will still, according to the rules, take fall damage. Now take the exact same character that for some reason can jump ten feet into the air. After they've jumped upwards they will start falling downwards. Same legs, same falling damage.
As Wysperra pointed out, at level 17 the damage is negligible. Especially for a monk.
Since you have the same legs, you should move the same when pushed as when walking? I don't think so. Having the same legs does not mean being able to use them equally in all situations.
Where are the rules concering leg movement when fall and jumping? You can literally hurt yourself from jump roping.
And yes, in a heroic fantasy setting, superhuman things are known to happen. Conflating rules, though, is not helpful. Have you considered that, by your logic, horizontal jumps are impossible? According to the falling rules, falls are instantaneous. So the second your feet leave the ground, under the falling rules, they instantaneously land again.
That's not my logic, nice strawmanning. But yes, there are many rules in D&D that doesn't make any sense.
That is clearly absurd. Instead of considering the falling rules to apply, consider the jumping rules as a specific exception to the falling rules. If you jump, you can travel up and/or forward up to the specified distance safely. If there is something there safe to land on, then that is a safe landing. This, no more, no less.
Except that you literally can't. Even people in the real world can do standing high jumps that can potentially cause injuries. There is nothing that says that accelerating downwards from a jump is any different than accelerating downwards from a fall. The speed of which you accelerate is exactly the same. The force of the impact is exactly the same. Sure, that's just real-world physics and isn't necessarily applicable to a fantasy game but there is nothing in the rules that excplicitly states that those physics doesn't apply. The jumping rules kind of implies this, but there's nothing RAW that says it does.
If there is a deadfall there, you fall from that point, taking appropriate damage. If you jump onto a spike, the mere fact you jumped does not save you from the spike. If you jump into a pool of lava, the fact that you jumped does not save you from the lava.
What has this to do with anything? Please stay on topic.
And yes, a monk can reduce falling damage based on their level, making longer falls safer for them, but that does not change the jumping rules nor does it make the jumping rules more dangerous for non-monks.
Except that it does. Monks have a special ability called slow fall which makes them able to mitigate falling damage.
Where are the rules regarding being injured while jumping rope?
Why are you moving the goalposts? You were the one caliming that as long as someone can jump a certain distance they are magically immune to falling from said distance. I used the jump rope example to show that this is factually wrong.
Pointing out inconsistencies is not strawmanning.
That was not what you were doing. You were bringing in lava and spikes into the discussion. Things no-one has even mentioned.
If the falling rules override the jumping rules, they override the jumping rules in all aspects described in the falling rules.
No-one has claimed that the falling rules override the jumping rules. Can you please stay on topic?
This would mean that since falls are instantaneous, horizontal jumps would be impossible.
Not really, no.
Going to the real world for jumping would mean that jumping or running into walls also causes damage. In fact, one can sprain one's ankle walking normally. It rarely happens but it can. There is no such 5e rule. There is nothing actually defining 'falling' in 5e, let alone equating landing from a jump with falling.
Please run as fast you can into a wall and tell me that didn't cause at least some kind of pain or damage. Also, you are factually wrong. The latter half of any jump is falling. No-where do the rules differiate between accelerating downwards as the result of stepping of a ten feet ladder or as the result of jumping ten feet into the air.
If you jump into open air, you fall from there.
So you finally agree that jumping high enough causes falling damage. Excellent! End of discussion. :)
That is what that paragraph had to do with this discussion.
Not really, no. Spikes and lava are irrelevant and you're just making a strawman from bringing them up.
The suggestion was that if landing from a jump does not cause damage, then one can safely jump off cliffs.
This is what your line of thinking would have to lead to, yes.
I was making a distinction between the portion due to the actual jump and the portion resulting from a lack of a supporting surface to land on and subsequent deadfall.
No-one has said anything about the surface the character is landing on. Or are you now saying that the surface is all that matters regarding fall damage?
Insisting that the monk safe fall makes jumping safer for monks is circular logic, since it assumes damage from jumps over 10' and therefore is using the conclusion to prove itself.
Not really. It's just a statement of fact. You claimed that falling was just as dangerous to monks as to other classes. I merely pointed out that this is objectively wrong since Monks have an ability that can mitigate damage taken by falls. It's no less circular logic than stating that fire is less dangerous to high level forge clerics than it is to other classes.
But I think we need to agree to disagree here.
Well, I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
Hi, I'm a fairly experienced D&D player and I had a question about the Rabbit Hop feature from Harengons. The feature says that it lets you jump a number of feet equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus without provoking opportunity attacks as a bonus action.
Now here's my dilemma: I plan to make a Harengon Drunken Master for a game I'll be joining soon. If my math is correct, at level 17 at least I'll have the ability to jump 30 feet as a bonus action with RH (not factoring in the likes of Step of the Wind or the Jump spell), but I came across a small hole in my plan: fall damage.
So here's my question: If my Harengon jumps let's say 10 feet off the ground and then 10 feet horizontally, would he take fall damage or would he not because the feature works differently compared to rules for high jump?
You can't jump 10 feet up and then 10 feet horizontally unless your DM is pretty radically interpreting the jump rules. You can cover the same distance by jumping 10 feet diagonally up on a grid or 15 feet (well, 14 feet and slightly more than 1.7 inches, so you'll need 15 feet to get there) without one.
Here are all of the rules we have for falling. Anything not covered here is explicitly DM fiat, so I'll explain what that means for you at the end.
When you make a long jump, at your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall.
When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.
What this means for you, particularly in light of some other posts in this thread:
Unless you are flying and knocked prone, in the general case there is no rule for determining when you fall: the game rules never determine it. In fact, the reason you fall through gases but not solids is technically DM fiat (the rules don't cover it), which is also why we only know WOTC intends you to take damage when you fall from the air onto water due to examples of falling: there aren't any rules for this.
Assuming you fall at the end of your jump (from 10 feet up), that would be a 10-foot fall as outlined above.
Because WOTC has provided a variant rule that allows a flying speed to mitigate fall distance, under that rule it mitigates the utility of having a flying speed if you can do the same thing without a flying speed; this may imply to your DM that the houserule suggested in this thread that jump distance should mitigate fall distance violates WOTC's RAI.
A Barbarian (or anyone else, they can just do it via a class ability and ASIs, without relying on magic items) that's reached Strength 24 can high jump 10 feet straight up and assuming they fall at the end of the jump, you will fall that 10 feet and take 1d6 bludgeoning. There's simply nothing strange if a Harengon also falls at the end of their jump and are so high up they take damage when they do so.
The rules for jumping don't do anything if you're forced to fall during the jump, so presumably you only fall when the jump ends. As jump direction is never defined either, presumably you should be able to spend jump distance moving down vertically, and again, only fall when your jump ends.
The jumping rules do not say nor even hint that there might be any problems landing after a high jump, though... And since running high jumps are described, presumably there is at least some forward momentum in such a jump.
The high jump rules also have a default maximum that doesn't provide an opportunity for fall damage. Only some sort of augmentation (to strength or jump distance) can lead to a high jump over 10'.
I still feel like the safest bet is a distinction based on the initiation: did you jump or did you fall? What's the saying? Intention is 3/4 of the law?
Of course there’s a difference between falling 10 feet of jumping 10 feet. If I fall 10 feet I’m gonna get hurt. If I jump down a 10 foot drop, the worst I’m gonna suffer is a pulled muscle. One of them (jumping) is being prepared for the impact, the other (falling) is not.
But personally I think if you are jumping under your own power then you don’t take damage. You are jumping not falling.
How does the ground know the difference?
RAW you would take damage. Gravity (or whatever its D&D equivalent is) works the same no matter what you do accelerate towards the ground.
The difference is not the ground but rather your legs.
You magically get different legs depending on if you are falling or if you are jumping? Cool!
If you step forward, even when you cannot see your feet, you move forward in a much more stable manner than if some one or some other force pushes you forward. When you jump, it is a much more controlled movement than free-fall. If your legs are powerful enough to propel you upwards against gravity, they are powerful enough to absorb the impact of a similar height landing.
No, not really. That's not how things work.
And as for RAW, there is nothing in the jumping rules linking them to the falling rules.
Well, except for the fact that as soon as you aren't moving upwards you are moving downwards. Ie falling.
Beyond your max high jump, I would say you would take falling damage. Nothing in jumping describes the landing as 'falling' nor is it plain English to describe it so short of jumping off a cliff or something other than landing from the height one can normally jump.
So if I jump of a cliff I'm suddenly immune to fall damage? Sweet!
And the track and field events in the Olympic is littered with the fallen and dying from all those jumping sports.
Unless you land wrong or on uneven ground if you jump you can handle the landing. NBA athletes can run and jump and dunk and they seem to do just fine. A cat or other animal can jump higher, for their size, than humans can and land safely because their body, like ours, can handle landing from a jump under our own power. If you jump but the surface you are landing on is significantly different in elevation than where you left the ground, that’s when injuries can happen.
Of course there’s a difference between falling 10 feet of jumping 10 feet. If I fall 10 feet I’m gonna get hurt. If I jump down a 10 foot drop, the worst I’m gonna suffer is a pulled muscle. One of them (jumping) is being prepared for the impact, the other (falling) is not.
I mean to be fair, if you land a jump wrong in reality you can do a lot worse than just a pulled muscle. 😝
But yeah, there's definitely a difference between a vertical descent you initiated yourself at a controlled speed and height with a view to landing correctly on your feet, versus a general fall which could be spinning end over end from the side of a blimp and directly onto your neck.
People get injured running all the time, but D&D doesn't expect us to make checks for that except in more extreme circumstances (running for a prolonged period, or in unusual conditions) so it's reasonable to intuit that the same is true of jumping; if a character can jump far then they can expect to just be able to do it because these are adventurers (sometimes even heroes), who have the super power of being able to just step through a door without catching a pocket on the handle and smashing their knee into the frame because their angle changed as a result… like what happened to some guy I know.
Where the actual line is drawn that a jump becomes a fall is up to the DM; we obviously don't want players "jumping" 1000 feet down and being fine because they were expecting it. Either that's a check with an insane DC or at some point it turned into a fall because it's no longer reasonable to argue you're in a controlled descent. But "I bunny hop 20 feet forward" should pretty much always be fine under normal conditions.
Hi, I'm a fairly experienced D&D player and I had a question about the Rabbit Hop feature from Harengons. The feature says that it lets you jump a number of feet equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus without provoking opportunity attacks as a bonus action.
Now here's my dilemma: I plan to make a Harengon Drunken Master for a game I'll be joining soon. If my math is correct, at level 17 at least I'll have the ability to jump 30 feet as a bonus action with RH (not factoring in the likes of Step of the Wind or the Jump spell), but I came across a small hole in my plan: fall damage.
So here's my question: If my Harengon jumps let's say 10 feet off the ground and then 10 feet horizontally, would he take fall damage or would he not because the feature works differently compared to rules for high jump?
I think I wouldn't play that a creature can take fall damage while actively jumping and covering the distance allowed by that jump. Sure you can jump down a 30' cliff without taking fall damage using your 30' RH, but if you "jump" down a 40' cliff, you're taking 4d6 fall damage from the entire height.
I tend to assume that fall damage is for when you can't prevent it in some way (like jumping or levitating), or when you're caught off guard by the fall and didn't jump.
This is entirely my opinion on how I'd run it based solely on my thoughts and a tweet saying a rogue should be able to jump off of a 10' fence without taking fall damage.
Well at 17th level monk (if you didn’t multiclass) you can reduce your fall damage by 85 points by using your reaction. But personally I think if you are jumping under your own power then you don’t take damage. You are jumping not falling. “Jumping” off of a cliff I would consider falling, however.
That's what I was thinking. Basically depending on the scenario, RH wouldn't cause fall damage as long as the fall isn't too much farther than what the RH can account for. I at least wanted a second opinion on the matter because I encountered a similar problem with a grung character my friend played. The DM of that game ruled it differently and it still doesn't sit right with me. So that was why this was a question I had about Harengon and how they worked compared to Grung
Thank you for the feedback! It helps to have a bit of clarity for these types of scenarios
The DM has the ability to make those rulings, though certainly the designers disagree. The falling rules only say what happens at the end of a fall. If your dm rules that jumping is the same as falling, then that's how it is in their game.
There's not a lot to do to change their mind, and making it into a rules argument isn't going to benefit anyone.
So I would mention to the DM that it would be an odd evolutionary adaptation to be able to jump a distance or height they are incapable of landing without injuring themselves. I can’t think of a single animal in the real world that can’t land their jumps safely. Would be absolutely useless way to escape predators.
But in the end they make the call and you have to abide by it.
This is something I have been wondering about myself, especially when compounded with dragging a grappled target with you for your jump.
For example, the Grapple rules tell us that our speed is halved when moving while grappling a creature. But are the jump distances halved?
And more related to the original topic of this thread is who takes damage if the jump height exceeds 10 feet? Both creatures, just the grapple victim, or neither?
How does the ground know the difference?
RAW you would take damage. Gravity (or whatever its D&D equivalent is) works the same no matter what you do accelerate towards the ground.
I'm curious about the situation in which you want to jump those distances? Additionally, if you fall 10 feet and take 1d6 fall damage, so what? You're lvl 17, no big deal.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You magically get different legs depending on if you are falling or if you are jumping? Cool!
If you step forward, even when you cannot see your feet, you move forward in a much more stable manner than if some one or some other force pushes you forward. When you jump, it is a much more controlled movement than free-fall. If your legs are powerful enough to propel you upwards against gravity, they are powerful enough to absorb the impact of a similar height landing.
No, not really. That's not how things work.
And as for RAW, there is nothing in the jumping rules linking them to the falling rules.
Well, except for the fact that as soon as you aren't moving upwards you are moving downwards. Ie falling.
So if I jump of a cliff I'm suddenly immune to fall damage? Sweet!
Since you have the same legs there is literally no difference between jumping ten feet into the air or falling ten feet. The downward trajectory of a jump is a fall. The fact that you can jump a certain height doesn't mean that you can safely fall the same distance. The force you have to absorb is exactly the same regardless of what initiates the downward acceleration.
Yes, this becomes silly when we get to the sometimes superhuman jumping heights that dnd characters can perform. That said, RAW doesn't make any kind of difference. If you want an example that illustrates this, imagine a character that for some reason can fly, levitate or hover and does so ten feet above the ground. For some reason they choose to end the effect that suspends them above the ground, thus causing a ten feet fall. Even though they are perfectly aware of this and thus should be able to prepare their legs for the landing they will still, according to the rules, take fall damage. Now take the exact same character that for some reason can jump ten feet into the air. After they've jumped upwards they will start falling downwards. Same legs, same falling damage.
As Wysperra pointed out, at level 17 the damage is negligible. Especially for a monk.
Where are the rules concering leg movement when fall and jumping? You can literally hurt yourself from jump roping.
That's not my logic, nice strawmanning. But yes, there are many rules in D&D that doesn't make any sense.
Except that you literally can't. Even people in the real world can do standing high jumps that can potentially cause injuries. There is nothing that says that accelerating downwards from a jump is any different than accelerating downwards from a fall. The speed of which you accelerate is exactly the same. The force of the impact is exactly the same. Sure, that's just real-world physics and isn't necessarily applicable to a fantasy game but there is nothing in the rules that excplicitly states that those physics doesn't apply. The jumping rules kind of implies this, but there's nothing RAW that says it does.
What has this to do with anything? Please stay on topic.
Except that it does. Monks have a special ability called slow fall which makes them able to mitigate falling damage.
There are a few issues here.
First, a long jump in D&D explicitly assumes that the height doesn't matter; mechanically you don't jump in an arc, you jump perfectly horizontally with the ground and never gain any height. If the height does matter (due to an obstacle) then you roll to see if you cleared it, but the actual height is only factored in as a difficulty.
Second, D&D never actually defines what they mean by a fall exactly; only that whatever it is you take damage at the end of it. This means we're left with dictionary definitions but some are far too vague to be useful, such as "a move from a higher to a lower level", but if you use that one then any flight of stairs higher than 10 feet is now a "fall". Personally I think the most useful definition is something like "uncontrolled descent".
With these two things in mind, I'm inclined to assume that a long jump at roughly the same level should always be safe, as it's effectively just a horizontal move that can clear gaps or low obstacles so there is no vertical height involved (mechanically). A high jump is trickier since it's explicitly vertical movement, so if you jump up without grabbing onto a ledge then you may end up in an uncontrolled descent; for me I'd rule on the basis of whether you jumped and missed (in which case maybe a roll for a controlled landing) vs. jumping up to grab at something knowing you'll come back down whether you get it or not.
However, if either type of jump is landing at a lower height than you leapt from, I'd count the descent as uncontrolled and apply fall damage.
In realistic terms, people have survived falls from incredible heights, but they do so by landing in a way that redirects momentum, i.e- landing into a roll, rather than smacking flat and coming to an immediate stop. I think it's fair to assume that someone who can naturally jump as a Harengon does should have some ability to absorb the blow from a normal jump as long as they land correctly (assumed in normal circumstances, checked in trickier ones).
TL;DR
In mechanical terms a long jump is just a horizontal move, everything else is really up to your DM.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Why are you moving the goalposts? You were the one caliming that as long as someone can jump a certain distance they are magically immune to falling from said distance. I used the jump rope example to show that this is factually wrong.
That was not what you were doing. You were bringing in lava and spikes into the discussion. Things no-one has even mentioned.
No-one has claimed that the falling rules override the jumping rules. Can you please stay on topic?
Not really, no.
Please run as fast you can into a wall and tell me that didn't cause at least some kind of pain or damage. Also, you are factually wrong. The latter half of any jump is falling. No-where do the rules differiate between accelerating downwards as the result of stepping of a ten feet ladder or as the result of jumping ten feet into the air.
So you finally agree that jumping high enough causes falling damage. Excellent! End of discussion. :)
Not really, no. Spikes and lava are irrelevant and you're just making a strawman from bringing them up.
This is what your line of thinking would have to lead to, yes.
No-one has said anything about the surface the character is landing on. Or are you now saying that the surface is all that matters regarding fall damage?
Not really. It's just a statement of fact. You claimed that falling was just as dangerous to monks as to other classes. I merely pointed out that this is objectively wrong since Monks have an ability that can mitigate damage taken by falls. It's no less circular logic than stating that fire is less dangerous to high level forge clerics than it is to other classes.
Well, I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
Cheers!
If it helps, the intention of the rules is that jumping is distinct from falling and won't cause you any fall damage from the jump alone.
From Crawford (sage advice)
The rules for falling can support this interpretation RAW, for those who don't like looking at sage advice.
You can't jump 10 feet up and then 10 feet horizontally unless your DM is pretty radically interpreting the jump rules. You can cover the same distance by jumping 10 feet diagonally up on a grid or 15 feet (well, 14 feet and slightly more than 1.7 inches, so you'll need 15 feet to get there) without one.
Here are all of the rules we have for falling. Anything not covered here is explicitly DM fiat, so I'll explain what that means for you at the end.
Here are all of the rules we have for normal jump height:
What this means for you, particularly in light of some other posts in this thread:
The high jump rules also have a default maximum that doesn't provide an opportunity for fall damage. Only some sort of augmentation (to strength or jump distance) can lead to a high jump over 10'.
I still feel like the safest bet is a distinction based on the initiation: did you jump or did you fall? What's the saying? Intention is 3/4 of the law?
Of course there’s a difference between falling 10 feet of jumping 10 feet. If I fall 10 feet I’m gonna get hurt. If I jump down a 10 foot drop, the worst I’m gonna suffer is a pulled muscle. One of them (jumping) is being prepared for the impact, the other (falling) is not.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
And the track and field events in the Olympic is littered with the fallen and dying from all those jumping sports.
Unless you land wrong or on uneven ground if you jump you can handle the landing. NBA athletes can run and jump and dunk and they seem to do just fine. A cat or other animal can jump higher, for their size, than humans can and land safely because their body, like ours, can handle landing from a jump under our own power. If you jump but the surface you are landing on is significantly different in elevation than where you left the ground, that’s when injuries can happen.
RAW, sure you fall more than 10’ you take damage.
I mean to be fair, if you land a jump wrong in reality you can do a lot worse than just a pulled muscle. 😝
But yeah, there's definitely a difference between a vertical descent you initiated yourself at a controlled speed and height with a view to landing correctly on your feet, versus a general fall which could be spinning end over end from the side of a blimp and directly onto your neck.
People get injured running all the time, but D&D doesn't expect us to make checks for that except in more extreme circumstances (running for a prolonged period, or in unusual conditions) so it's reasonable to intuit that the same is true of jumping; if a character can jump far then they can expect to just be able to do it because these are adventurers (sometimes even heroes), who have the super power of being able to just step through a door without catching a pocket on the handle and smashing their knee into the frame because their angle changed as a result… like what happened to some guy I know.
Where the actual line is drawn that a jump becomes a fall is up to the DM; we obviously don't want players "jumping" 1000 feet down and being fine because they were expecting it. Either that's a check with an insane DC or at some point it turned into a fall because it's no longer reasonable to argue you're in a controlled descent. But "I bunny hop 20 feet forward" should pretty much always be fine under normal conditions.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.