Looking at the rules on a long jump, you can make a DC 10 Athletics check to clear an obstacle no higher than 1/4 of the jumping distance. You also have to move 10 feet first. And you have to make another check in difficult terrain. So according to the rules, you can already make the height of a long jump equal to 1/4 of the distance.
Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. 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. Otherwise, you hit it.
When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone.
According to the rules, no. But I've been dm'ing weekly for two years. This shouldn't really come up a lot. If you just want it to add flavor to your Hulk character, ask the DM if you can just jump however high and only use the rules when it makes a difference.
Example, one of my player's made a Xena character. She has 3 attacks. Instead of throwing her weapon three times, I told her she could just roll three attacks and let it bounce around hitting people. Why? Because it doesn't change anything at all about her hits or damage. When it matters, we just go back the rules.
So if you're just jumping around the battlefield and you wish you looked cool jumping 10 feet higher, just do it. If you're running across the battlefield and jumping across a chasm to reach a ledge high up the other side, follow the rules.
Honestly I think the best way to do this would just be to have flight. Reskin an Aarakocra or a Teifling or ask for a magic item that grants flight only during your turn. This gives you all the flexibility you want and you don't have to push against rules that strongly limit high jumping even for high level characters.
If a character can somehow jump 20 feet straight up, no way am I making them take damage when they come down that same 20 feet.
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.
I do not interpret these rules for falling as being written to apply to landing from a jump unless your guy is over here doing the Fosbury flop.
That's exactly what I thought. I mean, if someone is strong enough to jump that high then should obviously be strong enough to withstand the descent. Right?
Unfortunately I still dont see a consensus about jumping *down* - I would think, though, that at the very least you should be able to subtract a number of feet equal to your high jump from the falling distance (and if no damage, no prone). But would you round up or down in this situation? Like, if you jump down 5 ft with a strength of 10, under my proposal you'd only "fall" 2 ft (base 3 plus 0). Since thats less than 10, and less than 5, would that go to 0 damage and no prone, or 0 damage but prone, or damage and prone (rounding up completely)? Or would it be that your height is free, perhaps? There seems to be a hole here that needs to be addressed.
That's exactly what I thought. I mean, if someone is strong enough to jump that high then should obviously be strong enough to withstand the descent. Right?
"Jump down off that ledge" is a sensible English phrase, though "jump up" is what folks usually assume you're talking about when you just say "jump." I treat a "jumping" as intentional vertical movement (in either direction) using your speed, while I treat "falling" as unintentional vertical movement not using your speed. You can "jump" down from a high ledge, and only "fall" for the distance that exceeds your jump distance. Or you can "jump" while holding a grappled opponent, and land just fine yourself (*a little messy, I treat the descent as free movement included within your high jump distance that doesn't count against your movement for the round), but have the grappled opponent "fall" that distance.
But the PHB just says 'jump, dummy," so reasonable minds could differ about whether what goes up must come down (safely). I think that my take is within RAW, and probably aligns with RAI, and is definitely RAF.
Speaking of RAW, there are written rules for jumping. There are written rules for falling. The written rules for jumping make no mention of falling. The written rules for falling make no mention of jumping. As far as RAW is concerned, they are distinct from each other.
This statement is not intended to disagree with you.
Agreed. There's RAW, but it draws a pretty big tent that a lot of different (contradictory) interpretations could fit into. Jumping down off a ledge isn't not RAW , but neither is saying that a "high jump" only goes up. Taking no damage from coming down on a high jump isn't not RAW, but neither is saying you do take damage because the jump only describes the distance up. It's one of those areas where you can color as you please within the lines, because a lot gets left unsaid.
It does complicate things. That really falls outside the context of this discussion though. Jumping down off of a cliff is very different from jumping up 5 or 10 or 20 feet (assuming you have the strength or magic to do so) and then coming back down for a landing.
I think the distinction made above about intentional vs unintentional has some weight here - you might take damage from an unintended fall of 10 ft but none from an intentional leap down, because in the latter scenario you're braced/ready for the impact (and landing on your feet most likely, which is also a natural shock absorber where landing on your shoulder or back is not).
Personally I'd be inclined to allow the standing high jump rules in reverse (taking character height plus modifiers away from distance fallen) and also allow a acrobatics check to avoid prone if you did take damage after all (maybe treat it, too, like concentration check; either DC 10 or half the damage whichever is larger).
Long jump is horizontal so no vertical fall would be involved, unless of course the bottomless chasm you were trying to jump over were wider than your jump distance.
High jump is almost always going to be 8' or less, unless you have truly exceptional strength, you are either trying to jump up onto something or over something, so again not much fall risk unless there is an abyss you weren't counting on.
Jumping down has the most potential for being a problem. This is what seems reasonable to me regarding jumping down; Athletics check against DC equal to height your jumping down. Success lands on feet with no damage, fail land prone with normal damage of fall from same height. Bearing in mind that you are probably wearing armor and carrying weapons and other gear as well as accounting for a persons particular athletic ability.
Sounds like a reasonable house rule to me.
Looking at the rules on a long jump, you can make a DC 10 Athletics check to clear an obstacle no higher than 1/4 of the jumping distance. You also have to move 10 feet first. And you have to make another check in difficult terrain. So according to the rules, you can already make the height of a long jump equal to 1/4 of the distance.
Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. 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. Otherwise, you hit it.
When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone.
I know, but what if I want to jump over something high?
My idea was to apply the same rules of the long jump to the high jump.
Ok, how about this:
For a long jump, you can just spend an extra 5ft of movement for every 5ft of extra height.
And for the high jump, you can just spend an extra 5ft of movement for every 5ft of extra distance.
With this you can make your jumps as flexible as you want them to be without making things to confusing!
According to the rules, no. But I've been dm'ing weekly for two years. This shouldn't really come up a lot. If you just want it to add flavor to your Hulk character, ask the DM if you can just jump however high and only use the rules when it makes a difference.
Example, one of my player's made a Xena character. She has 3 attacks. Instead of throwing her weapon three times, I told her she could just roll three attacks and let it bounce around hitting people. Why? Because it doesn't change anything at all about her hits or damage. When it matters, we just go back the rules.
So if you're just jumping around the battlefield and you wish you looked cool jumping 10 feet higher, just do it. If you're running across the battlefield and jumping across a chasm to reach a ledge high up the other side, follow the rules.
As long as your dm agrees, its all good.
Ok, I'll check with my DM
Honestly I think the best way to do this would just be to have flight. Reskin an Aarakocra or a Teifling or ask for a magic item that grants flight only during your turn. This gives you all the flexibility you want and you don't have to push against rules that strongly limit high jumping even for high level characters.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You mean something like the Barbarians Totem Warrior eagle trait?
If a character can somehow jump 20 feet straight up, no way am I making them take damage when they come down that same 20 feet.
I do not interpret these rules for falling as being written to apply to landing from a jump unless your guy is over here doing the Fosbury flop.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's exactly what I thought. I mean, if someone is strong enough to jump that high then should obviously be strong enough to withstand the descent. Right?
Unfortunately I still dont see a consensus about jumping *down* - I would think, though, that at the very least you should be able to subtract a number of feet equal to your high jump from the falling distance (and if no damage, no prone). But would you round up or down in this situation? Like, if you jump down 5 ft with a strength of 10, under my proposal you'd only "fall" 2 ft (base 3 plus 0). Since thats less than 10, and less than 5, would that go to 0 damage and no prone, or 0 damage but prone, or damage and prone (rounding up completely)? Or would it be that your height is free, perhaps? There seems to be a hole here that needs to be addressed.
not gonna lie, I completely forgot this was here.
Jumping is not falling 😄
"Not all those who wander are lost"
"Jump down off that ledge" is a sensible English phrase, though "jump up" is what folks usually assume you're talking about when you just say "jump." I treat a "jumping" as intentional vertical movement (in either direction) using your speed, while I treat "falling" as unintentional vertical movement not using your speed. You can "jump" down from a high ledge, and only "fall" for the distance that exceeds your jump distance. Or you can "jump" while holding a grappled opponent, and land just fine yourself (*a little messy, I treat the descent as free movement included within your high jump distance that doesn't count against your movement for the round), but have the grappled opponent "fall" that distance.
But the PHB just says 'jump, dummy," so reasonable minds could differ about whether what goes up must come down (safely). I think that my take is within RAW, and probably aligns with RAI, and is definitely RAF.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Speaking of RAW, there are written rules for jumping. There are written rules for falling. The written rules for jumping make no mention of falling. The written rules for falling make no mention of jumping. As far as RAW is concerned, they are distinct from each other.
This statement is not intended to disagree with you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Agreed. There's RAW, but it draws a pretty big tent that a lot of different (contradictory) interpretations could fit into. Jumping down off a ledge isn't not RAW , but neither is saying that a "high jump" only goes up. Taking no damage from coming down on a high jump isn't not RAW, but neither is saying you do take damage because the jump only describes the distance up. It's one of those areas where you can color as you please within the lines, because a lot gets left unsaid.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It does complicate things. That really falls outside the context of this discussion though. Jumping down off of a cliff is very different from jumping up 5 or 10 or 20 feet (assuming you have the strength or magic to do so) and then coming back down for a landing.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think the distinction made above about intentional vs unintentional has some weight here - you might take damage from an unintended fall of 10 ft but none from an intentional leap down, because in the latter scenario you're braced/ready for the impact (and landing on your feet most likely, which is also a natural shock absorber where landing on your shoulder or back is not).
Personally I'd be inclined to allow the standing high jump rules in reverse (taking character height plus modifiers away from distance fallen) and also allow a acrobatics check to avoid prone if you did take damage after all (maybe treat it, too, like concentration check; either DC 10 or half the damage whichever is larger).
Long jump is horizontal so no vertical fall would be involved, unless of course the bottomless chasm you were trying to jump over were wider than your jump distance.
High jump is almost always going to be 8' or less, unless you have truly exceptional strength, you are either trying to jump up onto something or over something, so again not much fall risk unless there is an abyss you weren't counting on.
Jumping down has the most potential for being a problem. This is what seems reasonable to me regarding jumping down; Athletics check against DC equal to height your jumping down. Success lands on feet with no damage, fail land prone with normal damage of fall from same height. Bearing in mind that you are probably wearing armor and carrying weapons and other gear as well as accounting for a persons particular athletic ability.