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.
Under the way I rule, you only have to consider two things:
What was the intention? Did you jump or fall? If you fell, and it was more than 10', you are taking fall damage.
How far was it? Did it exceed your ability to jump safely (with any relevant modifiers)? Then you are taking fall damage. Probably for the entire distance.
It isn't all that hard to adjudicate what I and I think Iamsposta are saying would be the easy way to rule. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is the only way to rule, just that if you choose it, there are some simple questions you can use to help you do it.
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.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
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.
That's a nice strawman. But sure, I'll play along. Yes, people get injured during the Olympics (or sports in general). They also do a bunch of things to prevent injuries. Ever noticed those big soft mats ath the high jump for example? Why do you think they jump into sand and not asphalt?
Unless you land wrong or on uneven ground if you jump you can handle the landing.
So people that can jump really high are immune to falling those distances? I think you should publish those finds because that throws both established physics and medicine out the window! Don't forget us when you win the Nobel prize!
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.
That's not how physics work but sure. Have to ask though, what's the difference between doing a standing jump of 30 feet into the air and standing on a cliff 30 feet high and jumping off?
RAW, sure you fall more than 10’ you take damage.
And RAW doesn't make a difference when it comes to the cause of the fall.
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.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
I mean, can you cite me the page number that says you take fall damage for anything other than falling? What page does it say that jumping is falling? No fluent English speaker would think that "I fell down the stairs" and "I jumped down the stairs" are the same sentence.
We can go around in circles or you can just disagree. The rules don't tell you that a jump is a fall, and most people wouldn't assume that they're the same, so you certainly can't fault someone else for not equating them.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
But this is where it becomes pure DM fiat; if you have a player describing something as an intentional, controlled downwards jump, rather than something that is unambiguously an uncontrolled fall, then a middle ground is required. This is literally what ability checks are for; things you attempt that have no guarantee of success, it's a prime example of what the Acrobatics is for, to let you determine if you can pull off an acrobatic stunt without hurting yourself.
How you actually handle it as a DM exactly is up to you; usually it's going to be setting a DC to ignore or reduce the damage somehow, but personally I like the simplicity of rolling an Acrobatics check and subtracting the result from the distance fallen (so with a +10 you could fall 30 feet safely, but there's a good chance you'll still take some damage) but that's very much a non-standard house rule, but I like it because it doesn't require setting a DC or deciding what the possible outcome(s) are going to be (as well as having to remember what you've done previously for consistency).
Other DMs may allow a creature with a 20 foot jump distance to simply jump 20 feet in any direction without penalties, and that's perfectly fine too; how each DM rules is going to be different, because we're beyond the rules actually telling us explicitly what to do.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
They are hitting the ground hard enough with their legs that, in your example, they are propelled upwards 20'. Based on your logic, shouldn't they take damage just from that?
What exactly are you trying to say?
The distinction people are making is jumping off (a controlled motion the body can be trained to handle and that in this example, the body *is* trained to handle) vs stepping off and simply falling (an uncontrolled motion that the body is not, in this example, trained to handle).
Except that it doesn't make any sense that the character would take damage when "stepping off" but not when "jumping off". If a character can jump 20' up and is standing on a 20' high wall, can they apvid fall damage by jumping of that wall? Why doesn't that count as a fall? What's the difference? The act of actively jumping? If so, can you please direct me to the page in the rules that tells us the distinction between a jump and a fall?
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.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
I mean, can you cite me the page number that says you take fall damage for anything other than falling?
Why would I? I've never made any such claims so why should I provide citations for your strawman?
What page does it say that jumping is falling? No fluent English speaker would think that "I fell down the stairs" and "I jumped down the stairs" are the same sentence.
And no-one has said they would.
We can go around in circles or you can just disagree. The rules don't tell you that a jump is a fall, and most people wouldn't assume that they're the same, so you certainly can't fault someone else for not equating them.
The rules doesn't make a difference between accelerating downwards due to a fall caused by say, stepping of a cliff or a fall caused by propelling yourself into the air volountarily.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
Your point is? BTW, not all high jumps return you to your original height.
But this is where it becomes pure DM fiat; if you have a player describing something as an intentional, controlled downwards jump, rather than something that is unambiguously an uncontrolled fall, then a middle ground is required. This is literally what ability checks are for; things you attempt that have no guarantee of success, it's a prime example of what the Acrobatics is for, to let you determine if you can pull off an acrobatic stunt without hurting yourself.
How you actually handle it as a DM exactly is up to you; usually it's going to be setting a DC to ignore or reduce the damage somehow, but personally I like the simplicity of rolling an Acrobatics check and subtracting the result from the distance fallen (so with a +10 you could fall 30 feet safely, but there's a good chance you'll still take some damage) but that's very much a non-standard house rule, but I like it because it doesn't require setting a DC or deciding what the possible outcome(s) are going to be (as well as having to remember what you've done previously for consistency).
Other DMs may allow a creature with a 20 foot jump distance to simply jump 20 feet in any direction without penalties, and that's perfectly fine too; how each DM rules is going to be different, because we're beyond the rules actually telling us explicitly what to do.
Everything is GM fiat. Including ignoring RBW (Rules Badly Written). I don't think anyone has argued against that, though?
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
Your point is?
That the rules don't tell us how we are supposed to handle this case; it is however perfectly reasonable to say "I try to jump down" in this case, rather than "I fall to the ground", since it's not such a long distance that it's beyond the realm of possibility that you could land safely, especially if you're a character that is well adapted to jumping.
If I jump from a fence, I do so with the expectation of landing on my feet and hopefully bending my knees at the correct moment to not suffer an injury, but if I fall from a fence I could be landing on any body part with no way to mitigate it. In the first case I have a reasonable expectation of no injury* while in the latter case injury is pretty much guaranteed.
*Someone with better physical coordination than me might land safely, I specifically would probably snap both ankles in mid air or something. 😂
BTW, not all high jumps return you to your original height.
Under normal circumstances they do unless you're trying to jump onto something (i.e- there's no downwards component to the jump); remember we're talking about falling here so we're not talking about the "jump up and stay there" case unless you whiff a check. 😝
If you make a high jump that somehow involves landing at a lower height than you started, e.g- trying to jump and grab something over an abyss, then that's a non-standard case, it's no longer simply a jump, so there's definitely at least a chance of it becoming a fall, or an automatic one, but it's pure DM fiat how to handle that, it's not defined in the rules, so it's for the DM to decide if or when it becomes a fall (e.g- is a check required? Does the fall include the jump, or start where the jump ends? etc.).
Everything is GM fiat. Including ignoring RBW (Rules Badly Written). I don't think anyone has argued against that, though?
My point is that nothing in the rules says when (or if) jumping becomes falling, so at some point the DM must decide when/if that becomes the case; while it's not well written, we do have the tools to handle these cases. Either the DM decides it's definitely a fall (you're jumping down too far for it to be reasonable to land safely) or they require some kind of ability check to decide if it's a fall or not, or to determine how bad a fall it's going to be.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
They are hitting the ground hard enough with their legs that, in your example, they are propelled upwards 20'. Based on your logic, shouldn't they take damage just from that?
What exactly are you trying to say?
The distinction people are making is jumping off (a controlled motion the body can be trained to handle and that in this example, the body *is* trained to handle) vs stepping off and simply falling (an uncontrolled motion that the body is not, in this example, trained to handle).
Except that it doesn't make any sense that the character would take damage when "stepping off" but not when "jumping off". If a character can jump 20' up and is standing on a 20' high wall, can they apvid fall damage by jumping of that wall? Why doesn't that count as a fall? What's the difference? The act of actively jumping? If so, can you please direct me to the page in the rules that tells us the distinction between a jump and a fall?
The pages that tells us the distinction between a jump and a fall are those describing jumping and falling, respectively.
Can you please quote the page number where it says that if you can jump a certain height upwards you are also immune to jumping the exact same height downwards? Or can you at least admit that there isn't such a rule?
They do not cross reference in any way. They do not describe either as being related to the other. The word 'fall' itself is not defined at all. As such,each DM is free to define it as they feel most appropriate for their table.
That wasn't the question I asked though. Can you please answer the question I asked?
Haven't read more than a few posts here, but I think it's fair to say that someone's maximum capacity for jumping up also includes the maximum they can jump down. Magic does exist in this setting, after all. If you can jump 10ft high, you should be able to land the jump too. If you can jump 30ft vertically, same applies as your body has it's own strength and power to actually get you that high and is trained to assist you with the landings.
The character that can jump vertically 30ft high lands on a lower point, 5ft lower than the original jump position? Yeah, 35ft is fair since an adventurer wouldn't suffer a fall penalty for a 5ft fall - they can land it easily. 10ft lower than the original jump position (aka 40ft to land from the highest point of the jump)? I would have them do a DC save based off the ease of landing on the terrain, just because it's on the edge of when damage is first applied. 15ft lower? 1d6 damage. 20ft-25ft lower? 2d6 damage. 30-35ft lower? 3d6 damage.
If that same character wanted to just jump down 35ft, without jumping higher than the original position instead? They could make that, so long as it was a jump down. Jumping down 40ft would require the same save based on terrain. Anything past that, fall damage just automatically applies.
Not sure if I've worded this in an easy to understand manner, but basically I know what I would rule for my players in this instance. It's fine by me if your own rulings are different, you have to do what works for your game.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
Your point is? BTW, not all high jumps return you to your original height.
That is the point. See if you can follow this. A high jump... where you end at a different height... that is within your high jump distance... is a... jump. Jumps use jump rules.
Can you please quote the page number where it says that if you can jump a certain height upwards you are also immune to jumping the exact same height downwards? Or can you at least admit that there isn't such a rule?
You should apply the same question to your own argument because there's no use demanding a citation when you don't have one for your own position; there is no rule that says that jumping downwards is automatically falling either, in fact the rules tell us precious little about when a fall actually occurs, only what happens when it does. On that basis you could argue that nobody ever falls unless a rule specifically says to (e.g- a flying creature that is knocked prone), but that would clearly be ridiculous; when a fall is a fall in the general sense is up to the DM.
Again if you look at definitions for falling the ones that make most sense for the game's purposes is "uncontrolled descent", because this give us a way to decide when something is or isn't a fall (or could be a fall with a failed check), because there is a significant difference between landing in a controlled manner with a view to absorbing the impact, vs. landing in an uncontrolled manner, e.g- onto your feet intentionally vs. unintentionally onto your neck.
I've mentioned this a number of times now, and so have others, but you conspicuously seem to want to ignore this difference. We have toolkit rules like ability checks for a reason, because these kinds of distinctions matter, and determine whether there is a way for something dangerous to not be, or for there to be some other outcome for a success (reduced damage etc.).
This militant "all downward motion is a fall" ruling is never stated in the rules, nor useful to the game, because by that logic a whole bunch of things that clearly shouldn't be falls become falls. Lifted into the air by a giant then gently set back down again? Fall. Lifted 60 feet into the air by a giant eagle then landed again? Fall. Slid down a drainpipe/firearm's pole? Fall. Slid down a ramp? Fall. And so-on. By all means rule that a check is required, but all downwards motion being an automatic fall needs a citation more than "it's okay to jump if you can jump" does.
Can you please quote the page number where it says that if you can jump a certain height upwards you are also immune to jumping the exact same height downwards? Or can you at least admit that there isn't such a rule?
You should apply the same question to your own argument
Why would I? Falling is downwards acceleration. The rules doesn't make any distinctions due to the cause of said acceleration.
Again if you look at definitions for falling the ones that make most sense for the game's purposes is "uncontrolled descent", because this give us a way to decide when something is or isn't a fall (or could be a fall with a failed check), because there is a significant difference between landing in a controlled manner with a view to absorbing the impact, vs. landing in an uncontrolled manner, e.g- onto your feet intentionally vs. unintentionally onto your neck.
So again, could you please quote the page number where this is made clear? Or really anything supporting your claims?
I've mentioned this a number of times now, and so have others, but you conspicuously seem to want to ignore this difference. We have toolkit rules like ability checks for a reason, because these kinds of distinctions matter, and determine whether there is a way for something dangerous to not be, or for there to be some other outcome for a success (reduced damage etc.).
I'm not ignoring anything, that's a rather uncouth accusation. I've asked a few very simple questions and I've yet to recieve a relevant answer.
This militant "all downward motion is a fall" ruling is never stated in the rules,
That's just a fact though. Or do you need specific rules that say "if you fall you fall downwards"?
nor useful to the game, because by that logic a whole bunch of things that clearly shouldn't be falls become falls. Lifted into the air by a giant then gently set back down again? Fall. Lifted 60 feet into the air by a giant eagle then landed again? Fall. Slid down a drainpipe/firearm's pole? Fall. Slid down a ramp? Fall. And so-on. By all means rule that a check is required, but all downwards motion being an automatic fall needs a citation more than "it's okay to jump if you can jump" does.
Are you confused on how to graivty works? Or is it simply the phrase "downwards acceleration" that you are having iddifculties with? Because none of your strawman examples are in any way relevant to the topic at hand. What you are describing are examples of where someone is being supported during the descent. Are you now claiming that when you jump upwards you are magically supported by something during your descent? If so, what are you being supported by and why don't you get the same support when you are falling?
How can one show the differences between something defined and something undefined?
I haven't asked you to. Now can you please asnwer the questions?
The words 'fall' and 'falling' are not defined in the rules. There is a rule that says what happens when one falls, but there is no rule that clarifies exactly what a fall is.
Why would your definition override that of anyone else?
If two people cannot agree on basic definitions, it is ok. Again, when something is left undefined, the rules tell us that the DM has the freedom to decide on the definition for their table.
Again, the question remains. Why do you say that you should ignore certain rules simply because of the means of propulsion?
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
Your point is? BTW, not all high jumps return you to your original height.
That is the point. See if you can follow this. A high jump... where you end at a different height... that is within your high jump distance... is a... jump. Jumps use jump rules.
Except that's literally not what you said. You calimed that "the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height." Which isn't necessariy true. But this is irrelevant so I don't see the point in you bringing it up.
Haven't read more than a few posts here, but I think it's fair to say that someone's maximum capacity for jumping up also includes the maximum they can jump down. Magic does exist in this setting, after all.
Sure, anything can be explained by magic and it's a totally valid thing to do when RAW doesn't make sense.
How can one show the differences between something defined and something undefined?
I haven't asked you to. Now can you please asnwer the questions?
The words 'fall' and 'falling' are not defined in the rules. There is a rule that says what happens when one falls, but there is no rule that clarifies exactly what a fall is.
Why would your definition override that of anyone else?
If two people cannot agree on basic definitions, it is ok. Again, when something is left undefined, the rules tell us that the DM has the freedom to decide on the definition for their table.
Again, the question remains. Why do you say that you should ignore certain rules simply because of the means of propulsion?
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
Your point is? BTW, not all high jumps return you to your original height.
That is the point. See if you can follow this. A high jump... where you end at a different height... that is within your high jump distance... is a... jump. Jumps use jump rules.
Except that's literally not what you said. You calimed that "the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height." Which isn't necessariy true. But this is irrelevant so I don't see the point in you bringing it up.
Did I? You've already begged for citations. Where did I say this?
Why would I? Falling is downwards acceleration. The rules doesn't make any distinctions due to the cause of said acceleration.
Citation please. 😝
So again, could you please quote the page number where this is made clear? Or really anything supporting your claims?
Try the jumping and falling rules where neither say that jumping is falling (or when to start measuring a fall or really anything useful), or the rules on ability checks that describe how you use them, specifically Acrobatics checks and their use in "acrobatic stunts" etc.
I can give any number of citations that show not only that what you are describing is not defined the way that you claim, as well as point you to the tools at a DM's disposal to resolve it. But then these are the same citations you keep demanding people give when you're not willing to give any of your own (and which people have been referencing this entire time).
I'm not ignoring anything, that's a rather uncouth accusation. I've asked a few very simple questions and I've yet to recieve a relevant answer.
People have repeatedly tried to answer your questions; you keep ignoring the answers because they're not what you seem to want to hear. And you've ignored me again, so I fail to see how it's an uncouth accusation when it continues to be true?
This militant "all downward motion is a fall" ruling is never stated in the rules,
That's just a fact though. Or do you need specific rules that say "if you fall you fall downwards"?
No. Because a definition of "fall" that includes the word "fall" would be entirely useless; I've given several other definitions, and pointed out why some are more useful than others, and some better fit the idiomatic nature of the game's rules.
Not all downward motion is automatically a fall, if it were a huge number of things in the game would also become falling, which is why it can't be a useful definition to apply…
nor useful to the game, because by that logic a whole bunch of things that clearly shouldn't be falls become falls. Lifted into the air by a giant then gently set back down again? Fall. Lifted 60 feet into the air by a giant eagle then landed again? Fall. Slid down a drainpipe/firearm's pole? Fall. Slid down a ramp? Fall. And so-on. By all means rule that a check is required, but all downwards motion being an automatic fall needs a citation more than "it's okay to jump if you can jump" does.
Are you confused on how to graivty works? Or is it simply the phrase "downwards acceleration" that you are having iddifculties with? Because none of your strawman examples are in any way relevant to the topic at hand. What you are describing are examples of where someone is being supported during the descent. Are you now claiming that when you jump upwards you are magically supported by something during your descent? If so, what are you being supported by and why don't you get the same support when you are falling?
…and you're ignoring that too, because this isn't straw-manning, I'm just applying your apparent definition of falling; the rules make no distinction between unsupported or supported descents, yet suddenly you're arguing in favour of a controlled descent being different to an uncontrolled one, after literally insisting that the opposite is the case for jumps while refusing to give any citations to support that argument. Both cannot be true.
Yet again, there is a difference between a controlled descent as part of a jump (or a slide, or being assisted etc.) versus an uncontrolled descent; I'm not the one who wants only some of these to be considered and not others, as to me they are all relevant. This is why games like D&D have a DM in the first place, to decide from context what simply happens, what requires a check, and what is going to count as a fall (and how far).
And what confuses me is why you seem determined to eliminate the DM from the equation? You're claiming "fact" as if you have a clear unambiguous ruling to refer to over which a DM should not need to make a decision, yet you refuse to give any kind of citation or proper reasoning; you're mostly just dismissing everybody else's arguments. It feels a lot like double standards.
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
Your point is? BTW, not all high jumps return you to your original height.
That is the point. See if you can follow this. A high jump... where you end at a different height... that is within your high jump distance... is a... jump. Jumps use jump rules.
Except that's literally not what you said. You calimed that "the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height." Which isn't necessariy true. But this is irrelevant so I don't see the point in you bringing it up.
If you're going to argue with literally everybody else in the thread, please be more careful about checking who you're replying to; you're replying to WolfOfBees who did not say what I did. You can find my response here. 😝
Again, the question remains. Why do you say that you should ignore certain rules simply because of the means of propulsion?
Because the means of propulsion is a significant distinction. Should players in your campaigns take falling damage from landing using a fly spell? The spell description does not say otherwise...
Except that the means of propulsion is NOT a significant distinction. Are you saying that you are falling slower when descending from a jump than from a fall? That is literally against the laws of physics. Comparing it to "landing" from a fly spell is just a strawman.
Again, the question remains. Why do you say that you should ignore certain rules simply because of the means of propulsion?
Because the means of propulsion is a significant distinction. Should players in your campaigns take falling damage from landing using a fly spell? The spell description does not say otherwise...
Except that the means of propulsion is NOT a significant distinction. Are you saying that you are falling slower when descending from a jump than from a fall? That is literally against the laws of physics. Comparing it to "landing" from a fly spell is just a strawman.
Flight is a different manner of propulsion.
We're not talking about flight. We are talking about the downward acceleration caused by either jumping or falling.
Analogies relevant to an argument are not strawmen.
Except that it's not relevant. We've been over this.
Landing from the normal height of a jump is not described in the rules as a fall.
It's literally the same thing. If you jump upwards, the moment you stop moving upwards you are falling downwards. Thus the rules for falling apply.
And as for the laws of physics, again, there is a difference between a controlled/planned landing from a jump vs the the usually uncontrolled landing from a freefall.
No. There is literally no difference. If so, please explain to me why someone who can jump 20 feet still takes damage from stepping of a 10 feet cliff. The rules doesn't say anything about "uncontrolled landing".
There''s no difference between falling on your butt and landing on your feet? Really?
If so, please explain to me why someone who can jump 20 feet still takes damage from stepping of a 10 feet cliff.
Ah, that is the problem though, isn't it. This is your entire supposition, and you're just asserting it. No evidence, just statement.
The rules doesn't say anything about "uncontrolled landing".
No, the rules talk about jumping and about falling... separately. And the rules say that when you do fall (and take damage), you land prone. Are you suggesting that every high jump of more than 10' ends in the jumper landing on their keister? One would imagine that the jumping rules would tell you something that important.
Under the way I rule, you only have to consider two things:
It isn't all that hard to adjudicate what I and I think Iamsposta are saying would be the easy way to rule. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is the only way to rule, just that if you choose it, there are some simple questions you can use to help you do it.
So if a character can jump 20 feet (for some reason or other) they won't take damage from jumping of a 20 feet cliff? And can you cite me the page number where they clarify that if you prepare and stepof a 20' cliff you don't take any falling damage?
That's a nice strawman. But sure, I'll play along. Yes, people get injured during the Olympics (or sports in general). They also do a bunch of things to prevent injuries. Ever noticed those big soft mats ath the high jump for example? Why do you think they jump into sand and not asphalt?
So people that can jump really high are immune to falling those distances? I think you should publish those finds because that throws both established physics and medicine out the window! Don't forget us when you win the Nobel prize!
Well, not really. https://www.deseret.com/2006/4/9/19947512/dunking-hurts-pain-is-common-result-for-nba-players-after-slams#:~:text=against the rim.-,Falling,-from the sky
Really? https://www.seniorcatwellness.com/how-far-can-cats-fall-without-getting-hurt/#:~:text=their righting reflex.-,Cats,-can usually fall
That's not how physics work but sure. Have to ask though, what's the difference between doing a standing jump of 30 feet into the air and standing on a cliff 30 feet high and jumping off?
And RAW doesn't make a difference when it comes to the cause of the fall.
I mean, can you cite me the page number that says you take fall damage for anything other than falling? What page does it say that jumping is falling? No fluent English speaker would think that "I fell down the stairs" and "I jumped down the stairs" are the same sentence.
We can go around in circles or you can just disagree. The rules don't tell you that a jump is a fall, and most people wouldn't assume that they're the same, so you certainly can't fault someone else for not equating them.
The jumping rules don't normally grant a creature a 20 foot downward jump as a defined move; the two types are long jump (horizontal) or high jump (vertical with a short horizontal run up), only the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height.
But this is where it becomes pure DM fiat; if you have a player describing something as an intentional, controlled downwards jump, rather than something that is unambiguously an uncontrolled fall, then a middle ground is required. This is literally what ability checks are for; things you attempt that have no guarantee of success, it's a prime example of what the Acrobatics is for, to let you determine if you can pull off an acrobatic stunt without hurting yourself.
How you actually handle it as a DM exactly is up to you; usually it's going to be setting a DC to ignore or reduce the damage somehow, but personally I like the simplicity of rolling an Acrobatics check and subtracting the result from the distance fallen (so with a +10 you could fall 30 feet safely, but there's a good chance you'll still take some damage) but that's very much a non-standard house rule, but I like it because it doesn't require setting a DC or deciding what the possible outcome(s) are going to be (as well as having to remember what you've done previously for consistency).
Other DMs may allow a creature with a 20 foot jump distance to simply jump 20 feet in any direction without penalties, and that's perfectly fine too; how each DM rules is going to be different, because we're beyond the rules actually telling us explicitly what to do.
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.
What exactly are you trying to say?
Except that it doesn't make any sense that the character would take damage when "stepping off" but not when "jumping off". If a character can jump 20' up and is standing on a 20' high wall, can they apvid fall damage by jumping of that wall? Why doesn't that count as a fall? What's the difference? The act of actively jumping? If so, can you please direct me to the page in the rules that tells us the distinction between a jump and a fall?
Why would I? I've never made any such claims so why should I provide citations for your strawman?
And no-one has said they would.
The rules doesn't make a difference between accelerating downwards due to a fall caused by say, stepping of a cliff or a fall caused by propelling yourself into the air volountarily.
Your point is? BTW, not all high jumps return you to your original height.
Everything is GM fiat. Including ignoring RBW (Rules Badly Written). I don't think anyone has argued against that, though?
That the rules don't tell us how we are supposed to handle this case; it is however perfectly reasonable to say "I try to jump down" in this case, rather than "I fall to the ground", since it's not such a long distance that it's beyond the realm of possibility that you could land safely, especially if you're a character that is well adapted to jumping.
If I jump from a fence, I do so with the expectation of landing on my feet and hopefully bending my knees at the correct moment to not suffer an injury, but if I fall from a fence I could be landing on any body part with no way to mitigate it. In the first case I have a reasonable expectation of no injury* while in the latter case injury is pretty much guaranteed.
*Someone with better physical coordination than me might land safely, I specifically would probably snap both ankles in mid air or something. 😂
Under normal circumstances they do unless you're trying to jump onto something (i.e- there's no downwards component to the jump); remember we're talking about falling here so we're not talking about the "jump up and stay there" case unless you whiff a check. 😝
If you make a high jump that somehow involves landing at a lower height than you started, e.g- trying to jump and grab something over an abyss, then that's a non-standard case, it's no longer simply a jump, so there's definitely at least a chance of it becoming a fall, or an automatic one, but it's pure DM fiat how to handle that, it's not defined in the rules, so it's for the DM to decide if or when it becomes a fall (e.g- is a check required? Does the fall include the jump, or start where the jump ends? etc.).
My point is that nothing in the rules says when (or if) jumping becomes falling, so at some point the DM must decide when/if that becomes the case; while it's not well written, we do have the tools to handle these cases. Either the DM decides it's definitely a fall (you're jumping down too far for it to be reasonable to land safely) or they require some kind of ability check to decide if it's a fall or not, or to determine how bad a fall it's going to be.
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.
Can you please quote the page number where it says that if you can jump a certain height upwards you are also immune to jumping the exact same height downwards? Or can you at least admit that there isn't such a rule?
That wasn't the question I asked though. Can you please answer the question I asked?
Haven't read more than a few posts here, but I think it's fair to say that someone's maximum capacity for jumping up also includes the maximum they can jump down. Magic does exist in this setting, after all. If you can jump 10ft high, you should be able to land the jump too. If you can jump 30ft vertically, same applies as your body has it's own strength and power to actually get you that high and is trained to assist you with the landings.
The character that can jump vertically 30ft high lands on a lower point, 5ft lower than the original jump position? Yeah, 35ft is fair since an adventurer wouldn't suffer a fall penalty for a 5ft fall - they can land it easily. 10ft lower than the original jump position (aka 40ft to land from the highest point of the jump)? I would have them do a DC save based off the ease of landing on the terrain, just because it's on the edge of when damage is first applied. 15ft lower? 1d6 damage. 20ft-25ft lower? 2d6 damage. 30-35ft lower? 3d6 damage.
If that same character wanted to just jump down 35ft, without jumping higher than the original position instead? They could make that, so long as it was a jump down. Jumping down 40ft would require the same save based on terrain. Anything past that, fall damage just automatically applies.
Not sure if I've worded this in an easy to understand manner, but basically I know what I would rule for my players in this instance. It's fine by me if your own rulings are different, you have to do what works for your game.
That is the point. See if you can follow this. A high jump... where you end at a different height... that is within your high jump distance... is a... jump. Jumps use jump rules.
You should apply the same question to your own argument because there's no use demanding a citation when you don't have one for your own position; there is no rule that says that jumping downwards is automatically falling either, in fact the rules tell us precious little about when a fall actually occurs, only what happens when it does. On that basis you could argue that nobody ever falls unless a rule specifically says to (e.g- a flying creature that is knocked prone), but that would clearly be ridiculous; when a fall is a fall in the general sense is up to the DM.
Again if you look at definitions for falling the ones that make most sense for the game's purposes is "uncontrolled descent", because this give us a way to decide when something is or isn't a fall (or could be a fall with a failed check), because there is a significant difference between landing in a controlled manner with a view to absorbing the impact, vs. landing in an uncontrolled manner, e.g- onto your feet intentionally vs. unintentionally onto your neck.
I've mentioned this a number of times now, and so have others, but you conspicuously seem to want to ignore this difference. We have toolkit rules like ability checks for a reason, because these kinds of distinctions matter, and determine whether there is a way for something dangerous to not be, or for there to be some other outcome for a success (reduced damage etc.).
This militant "all downward motion is a fall" ruling is never stated in the rules, nor useful to the game, because by that logic a whole bunch of things that clearly shouldn't be falls become falls. Lifted into the air by a giant then gently set back down again? Fall. Lifted 60 feet into the air by a giant eagle then landed again? Fall. Slid down a drainpipe/firearm's pole? Fall. Slid down a ramp? Fall. And so-on. By all means rule that a check is required, but all downwards motion being an automatic fall needs a citation more than "it's okay to jump if you can jump" does.
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 would I? Falling is downwards acceleration. The rules doesn't make any distinctions due to the cause of said acceleration.
So again, could you please quote the page number where this is made clear? Or really anything supporting your claims?
I'm not ignoring anything, that's a rather uncouth accusation. I've asked a few very simple questions and I've yet to recieve a relevant answer.
That's just a fact though. Or do you need specific rules that say "if you fall you fall downwards"?
Are you confused on how to graivty works? Or is it simply the phrase "downwards acceleration" that you are having iddifculties with? Because none of your strawman examples are in any way relevant to the topic at hand. What you are describing are examples of where someone is being supported during the descent. Are you now claiming that when you jump upwards you are magically supported by something during your descent? If so, what are you being supported by and why don't you get the same support when you are falling?
I haven't asked you to. Now can you please asnwer the questions?
Again, the question remains. Why do you say that you should ignore certain rules simply because of the means of propulsion?
Except that's literally not what you said. You calimed that "the high jump has a downward component and that's only returning you to your original height." Which isn't necessariy true. But this is irrelevant so I don't see the point in you bringing it up.
Sure, anything can be explained by magic and it's a totally valid thing to do when RAW doesn't make sense.
Did I? You've already begged for citations. Where did I say this?
Citation please. 😝
Try the jumping and falling rules where neither say that jumping is falling (or when to start measuring a fall or really anything useful), or the rules on ability checks that describe how you use them, specifically Acrobatics checks and their use in "acrobatic stunts" etc.
I can give any number of citations that show not only that what you are describing is not defined the way that you claim, as well as point you to the tools at a DM's disposal to resolve it. But then these are the same citations you keep demanding people give when you're not willing to give any of your own (and which people have been referencing this entire time).
People have repeatedly tried to answer your questions; you keep ignoring the answers because they're not what you seem to want to hear. And you've ignored me again, so I fail to see how it's an uncouth accusation when it continues to be true?
No. Because a definition of "fall" that includes the word "fall" would be entirely useless; I've given several other definitions, and pointed out why some are more useful than others, and some better fit the idiomatic nature of the game's rules.
Not all downward motion is automatically a fall, if it were a huge number of things in the game would also become falling, which is why it can't be a useful definition to apply…
…and you're ignoring that too, because this isn't straw-manning, I'm just applying your apparent definition of falling; the rules make no distinction between unsupported or supported descents, yet suddenly you're arguing in favour of a controlled descent being different to an uncontrolled one, after literally insisting that the opposite is the case for jumps while refusing to give any citations to support that argument. Both cannot be true.
Yet again, there is a difference between a controlled descent as part of a jump (or a slide, or being assisted etc.) versus an uncontrolled descent; I'm not the one who wants only some of these to be considered and not others, as to me they are all relevant. This is why games like D&D have a DM in the first place, to decide from context what simply happens, what requires a check, and what is going to count as a fall (and how far).
And what confuses me is why you seem determined to eliminate the DM from the equation? You're claiming "fact" as if you have a clear unambiguous ruling to refer to over which a DM should not need to make a decision, yet you refuse to give any kind of citation or proper reasoning; you're mostly just dismissing everybody else's arguments. It feels a lot like double standards.
If you're going to argue with literally everybody else in the thread, please be more careful about checking who you're replying to; you're replying to WolfOfBees who did not say what I did. You can find my response here. 😝
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.
Where in the rules does it specify that a vertical jump must be made upwards?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
True, but now that I’ve reread the rules it never does actually say you have to jump /up/, and jumping down from a height is still a “high” jump.
Except that the means of propulsion is NOT a significant distinction. Are you saying that you are falling slower when descending from a jump than from a fall? That is literally against the laws of physics. Comparing it to "landing" from a fly spell is just a strawman.
We're not talking about flight. We are talking about the downward acceleration caused by either jumping or falling.
Except that it's not relevant. We've been over this.
It's literally the same thing. If you jump upwards, the moment you stop moving upwards you are falling downwards. Thus the rules for falling apply.
No. There is literally no difference. If so, please explain to me why someone who can jump 20 feet still takes damage from stepping of a 10 feet cliff. The rules doesn't say anything about "uncontrolled landing".
There''s no difference between falling on your butt and landing on your feet? Really?
Ah, that is the problem though, isn't it. This is your entire supposition, and you're just asserting it. No evidence, just statement.
No, the rules talk about jumping and about falling... separately. And the rules say that when you do fall (and take damage), you land prone. Are you suggesting that every high jump of more than 10' ends in the jumper landing on their keister? One would imagine that the jumping rules would tell you something that important.