I draw the distinction that coming down from a vertical jump isn't a fall, but I only consider it that way so long as you land no lower than you started.
I draw the distinction that coming down from a vertical jump isn't a fall, but I only consider it that way so long as you land no lower than you started.
As far as I know, there is no rules that governs this scenario, but this is the way I have always ruled it as well. The "fall" distance begins when you make it back to the same elevation as you started.
Interesting. I always played it like if you jump 10 feet straight up, you spent 10 feet of movement, not 20. And yeah, if there's a 20-foot gap, and you have 10 feet of movement available, your jump ends 10 feet away, and you're doing some Looney Tunes coyote stuff standing in midair :)
Yeah I don't think High Jumps are supposed to use your movement for coming back down; for example if you do a High Jump and jump 5 feet in the air then land, you only used 5 feet of movement, not 10. Though I don't know if that's what Plaguescarred is saying? Sounds like they mean you need to either grab or land on something above you when making a High Jump, or else you fall regardless. No matter what the height of the jump is, the fall back down to the ground is not part of the movement.
There is no RAW for how to rule whether or not to take damage from the "fall" of a High Jump, and it can certainly get kind of wonky. I too would - generally - rule that so long as you land at the same elevation (or higher) that you started a High Jump, you shouldn't take fall damage. Obviously if you jump off something, you should take fall damage. But it's a good thought experiment, especially with the way the new Jump spell works. If you use Jump to High Jump 30 feet up, then come back and land on the same elevation... well, Jump doesn't confer the benefits of Feather Fall or anything, and 30 feet's quite a distance, so you should probably take fall damage. Hm.
I was thinking about races like Grung that can leap vertically 15 feet(?) I wouldn't make the PC take damage when they came down.
What I was wondering was if they jumped out of a second story window 10 feet up if they would take fall damage. They can jump up and land with no damage can they jump down and take no damage?
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?"
If you jump 10 feet straight up, you spent 10 feet of movement, and fall, unless you spend 10 more feet each foot of movements going down. Basically gravity pulls you down when not jumping and you only jump a set distance which takes up movement.
RAW doesn't really address jumping without using movement, so you either jump or fall. Same for long jump, you must land or grab onto something at the end of such movement or else you fall if you tried jumping over a crevasse for example.
Interesting take. Personally I don't think you should allow for - or require - players to use their movement on the descent, that's a bit of a slippery slope. One could easily argue that if you can do that, you should be able to use your movement to avoid fall damage altogether; for example dropping off a 30 foot cliff, and using 30 feet of movement to land without taking any damage.
The High Jump rules certainly don't seem to insinuate that you can use your movement for the descent, at any rate; it talks about spending your movement to "leap into the air," and that's all.
If you jump 10 feet straight up, you spent 10 feet of movement, and fall, unless you spend 10 more feet each foot of movements going down. Basically gravity pulls you down when not jumping and you only jump a set distance which takes up movement.
RAW doesn't really address jumping without using movement, so you either jump or fall. Same for long jump, you must land or grab onto something at the end of such movement or else you fall if you tried jumping over a crevasse for example.
@Hungryghoast if someone uses Jump or a magic item to jump straight upward 30 feet, do they take 30 feet falling dmg coming back down?
@JeremyECrawford As DM, I'd probably roll falling damage if a character jumped straight up and then dropped like a stone.
Well while that might be Crawfords take on it, I have to respectfully disagree.
Like others have said, if making a vertical jump used movement both in the direction of increasing elevation then decreasing elevation back to the same starting elevation then the rules would state such, but they don’t.
As far as the vertical distance from the jump spell, if the movement is straight up then straight down, any distance greater than the normal jump distance should require a check to determine if the ability to land without taking damage. Any distance greater than the typical 1.5 normally allowed vertical distance, up or down would require a check equal to the distance falling below the initial elevation where the jump begins.
Example, a creature attempting to jump from a wall 30 feet tall to the ground will have to make a check ( athletics or acrobatics with a DC based on the height jumped down minus the creature’s normal vertical jump height.)
Save and dependent on height the damage may be halved or null, fail and damage is whole.
High jump is vertical, which imply up and down in perpendicular direction. Apart from that the rules don't address much more, all we're told is that jumping use movement and falling isn't but cause damage.
TBH I've seen rarely seen table ruling either way because people usually know how much it can jump up and usually don't try past it.
Jumping: When you jump, you make either a Long Jump (horizontal) or a High Jump (vertical). See also “Long Jump” and “High Jump.”
I was thinking about races like Grung that can leap vertically 15 feet(?) I wouldn't make the PC take damage when they came down.
What I was wondering was if they jumped out of a second story window 10 feet up if they would take fall damage. They can jump up and land with no damage can they jump down and take no damage?
For me, I wouldn't roll damage in this situation. Also, it would mean a Grung is incapable of jumping to their full ability without falling prone at the end, and that just seems silly to me. My personal judgment at the table would be that whatever vertical distance a creature is capable of jumping to, they are also capable of falling that distance without issue unless the situation dictated they not land on their feet. In your example, a grung who could jump 15 feet straight up would be able to jump out of a second-story window and land on their feet without issue at my table. Or maybe I'd have them make an acrobatics check if they were jumping blind or something.
I say this with full admission that I'm describing a house rule in the rules channel, so I'll just leave it at that.
High jump is vertical, which imply up and down in perpendicular direction. Apart from that the rules don't address much more, all we're told is that jumping use movement and falling isn't but cause damage.
TBH I've seen rarely seen table ruling either way because people usually know how much it can jump up and usually don't try past it.
Jumping: When you jump, you make either a Long Jump (horizontal) or a High Jump (vertical). See also “Long Jump” and “High Jump.”
Well, vertical doesn't necessarily imply "up and down;" it just implies the direction of the plane. In fact, a "vertical jump(/leap)" is an athletic term that describes how high someone can jump; the descent distance (which is obviously the same) is not measured. The rules for High Jump say that the "leap into the air" uses your movement. It says nothing about the descent from the air using movement, and since it doesn't say it, it doesn't do it. And, again, slippery slope; allowing or requiring the descent to use movement opens up the argument for being able to reduce fall distance by an amount equal to your jump height.
Anyway, while I think the RAW and RAI is that the "fall" from a jump should be subject to falling damage - for example, if someone uses Jump to jump 30 feet straight into the air and comes back down, they should then take 30 feet worth of fall damage, even though they could easily have 20 (or more) feet of movement left - there's a lot of wiggle room for Rule of Fun/Cool there. If someone in my game wanted to use Jump to drop 30 feet without taking damage, I'd probably allow it, though RAW they should take full damage.
That... seemed contradictory. You're saying you can't reduce falling distance using movement because that requires jumping, but you can jump down, thus reducing falling distance using movement?
Or maybe you're saying that if you unintentionally fall, you shouldn't be able to use movement to reduce that, but if you intentionally fall (aka jump off something,) you should? When I spoke of the slippery slope before, I didn't mean to imply that - if you allow using movement to reduce fall distance from a jump - you should be able to use movement to reduce all fall distance; I too was talking about reducing fall distance from a jump (or "drop").
However, RAW, that isn't allowed; RAW, there's no difference between falling off something intentionally or unintentionally, you still take fall damage, and you can't reduce the distance fallen - when you fall intentionally - by "jumping down."
Though, that's - by my reading - RAW. I'd probably allow it, and more than likely have in the past without really even thinking about it; I don't tend to impose fall damage if players intentionally drop off something that's not super high.
What i mean is that each foot of a jump costs a foot of movement but not each foot of a fall costs a foot of movement. So as long you're jumping, you're moving and thus not falling. It's basically what allows you to jump over pit without falling. But at the end of a jump you're falling if still in the air is basically what the Devs said. However, people can rule any way they want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For the most part I'm going to make a presumption.
If a PC can jump up 10 or 20 feet, they take no damage when they come down.
The question is, If they jump out of a window or fall into a pit, do they take damage from that?
"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
I draw the distinction that coming down from a vertical jump isn't a fall, but I only consider it that way so long as you land no lower than you started.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
As far as I know, there is no rules that governs this scenario, but this is the way I have always ruled it as well. The "fall" distance begins when you make it back to the same elevation as you started.
To me jumping can result in a fall if still in the air at the end of it.
Can you elaborate on this a bit, please? I can read this a few different ways.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sure, however you jump, each foot costs a foot of movement so you must land or grab onto something at the end of such movement or else you fall.
If for example you do a high jump 30 feet straight up in the air and have no movement left, you fall right down 30 feet.
IIRC Devs had comment in that sense too over the years when asked about jumping and falling.
Interesting. I always played it like if you jump 10 feet straight up, you spent 10 feet of movement, not 20. And yeah, if there's a 20-foot gap, and you have 10 feet of movement available, your jump ends 10 feet away, and you're doing some Looney Tunes coyote stuff standing in midair :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah I don't think High Jumps are supposed to use your movement for coming back down; for example if you do a High Jump and jump 5 feet in the air then land, you only used 5 feet of movement, not 10. Though I don't know if that's what Plaguescarred is saying? Sounds like they mean you need to either grab or land on something above you when making a High Jump, or else you fall regardless. No matter what the height of the jump is, the fall back down to the ground is not part of the movement.
There is no RAW for how to rule whether or not to take damage from the "fall" of a High Jump, and it can certainly get kind of wonky.
I too would - generally - rule that so long as you land at the same elevation (or higher) that you started a High Jump, you shouldn't take fall damage. Obviously if you jump off something, you should take fall damage. But it's a good thought experiment, especially with the way the new Jump spell works. If you use Jump to High Jump 30 feet up, then come back and land on the same elevation... well, Jump doesn't confer the benefits of Feather Fall or anything, and 30 feet's quite a distance, so you should probably take fall damage. Hm.
I was thinking about races like Grung that can leap vertically 15 feet(?) I wouldn't make the PC take damage when they came down.
What I was wondering was if they jumped out of a second story window 10 feet up if they would take fall damage. They can jump up and land with no damage can they jump down and take no damage?
"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
If you jump 10 feet straight up, you spent 10 feet of movement, and fall, unless you spend 10 more feet each foot of movements going down. Basically gravity pulls you down when not jumping and you only jump a set distance which takes up movement.
RAW doesn't really address jumping without using movement, so you either jump or fall. Same for long jump, you must land or grab onto something at the end of such movement or else you fall if you tried jumping over a crevasse for example.
While not official ruling per see, the Devs also answered Q&A about this in the past; https://www.sageadvice.eu/jumping-damage/
Interesting take. Personally I don't think you should allow for - or require - players to use their movement on the descent, that's a bit of a slippery slope. One could easily argue that if you can do that, you should be able to use your movement to avoid fall damage altogether; for example dropping off a 30 foot cliff, and using 30 feet of movement to land without taking any damage.
The High Jump rules certainly don't seem to insinuate that you can use your movement for the descent, at any rate; it talks about spending your movement to "leap into the air," and that's all.
Well while that might be Crawfords take on it, I have to respectfully disagree.
Like others have said, if making a vertical jump used movement both in the direction of increasing elevation then decreasing elevation back to the same starting elevation then the rules would state such, but they don’t.
As far as the vertical distance from the jump spell, if the movement is straight up then straight down, any distance greater than the normal jump distance should require a check to determine if the ability to land without taking damage. Any distance greater than the typical 1.5 normally allowed vertical distance, up or down would require a check equal to the distance falling below the initial elevation where the jump begins.
Example, a creature attempting to jump from a wall 30 feet tall to the ground will have to make a check ( athletics or acrobatics with a DC based on the height jumped down minus the creature’s normal vertical jump height.)
Save and dependent on height the damage may be halved or null, fail and damage is whole.
High jump is vertical, which imply up and down in perpendicular direction. Apart from that the rules don't address much more, all we're told is that jumping use movement and falling isn't but cause damage.
TBH I've seen rarely seen table ruling either way because people usually know how much it can jump up and usually don't try past it.
For me, I wouldn't roll damage in this situation. Also, it would mean a Grung is incapable of jumping to their full ability without falling prone at the end, and that just seems silly to me. My personal judgment at the table would be that whatever vertical distance a creature is capable of jumping to, they are also capable of falling that distance without issue unless the situation dictated they not land on their feet. In your example, a grung who could jump 15 feet straight up would be able to jump out of a second-story window and land on their feet without issue at my table. Or maybe I'd have them make an acrobatics check if they were jumping blind or something.
I say this with full admission that I'm describing a house rule in the rules channel, so I'll just leave it at that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well, vertical doesn't necessarily imply "up and down;" it just implies the direction of the plane. In fact, a "vertical jump(/leap)" is an athletic term that describes how high someone can jump; the descent distance (which is obviously the same) is not measured.
The rules for High Jump say that the "leap into the air" uses your movement. It says nothing about the descent from the air using movement, and since it doesn't say it, it doesn't do it.
And, again, slippery slope; allowing or requiring the descent to use movement opens up the argument for being able to reduce fall distance by an amount equal to your jump height.
Anyway, while I think the RAW and RAI is that the "fall" from a jump should be subject to falling damage - for example, if someone uses Jump to jump 30 feet straight into the air and comes back down, they should then take 30 feet worth of fall damage, even though they could easily have 20 (or more) feet of movement left - there's a lot of wiggle room for Rule of Fun/Cool there. If someone in my game wanted to use Jump to drop 30 feet without taking damage, I'd probably allow it, though RAW they should take full damage.
You can't reduce falling distance using movement without jumping because fall doesn't use movement, jumping does.
If vertical high jump isn't up and down, how are you supposed to jump down beside letting yourself fall off?
That... seemed contradictory. You're saying you can't reduce falling distance using movement because that requires jumping, but you can jump down, thus reducing falling distance using movement?
Or maybe you're saying that if you unintentionally fall, you shouldn't be able to use movement to reduce that, but if you intentionally fall (aka jump off something,) you should?
When I spoke of the slippery slope before, I didn't mean to imply that - if you allow using movement to reduce fall distance from a jump - you should be able to use movement to reduce all fall distance; I too was talking about reducing fall distance from a jump (or "drop").
However, RAW, that isn't allowed; RAW, there's no difference between falling off something intentionally or unintentionally, you still take fall damage, and you can't reduce the distance fallen - when you fall intentionally - by "jumping down."
Though, that's - by my reading - RAW. I'd probably allow it, and more than likely have in the past without really even thinking about it; I don't tend to impose fall damage if players intentionally drop off something that's not super high.
I think this follows RAW:
But personally, I'm ruling that you don't take falling damage from your own jumps if you land the same height you jumped from.
What i mean is that each foot of a jump costs a foot of movement but not each foot of a fall costs a foot of movement. So as long you're jumping, you're moving and thus not falling. It's basically what allows you to jump over pit without falling. But at the end of a jump you're falling if still in the air is basically what the Devs said. However, people can rule any way they want.