### Steve Neubauer

Shared publicly  -

Time to #geek out with some #dungeonsanddragons (3.5e) applied to real life!

What sort of #Jump check would this take to achieve? Let's assume the stack in the image is six feet tall. The man appears to be larger than that, and the other men in the image are a bit shorter than he. The man in the back holding the boxes appears to be the shortest, but is still taller than the stack.

A Vertical Jump is a DC of 4/foot with an 8 foot reach being trivial for medium-sized creatures (they don't have to jump to reach that high). This vertical reach rule is in place because D&D assumes a grab to a higher ledge and then a subsequent climb check. Since this isn't really a 14 foot vertical jump, but also not a 6 foot jump (less than trivial for medium-sized creatures, remember), let's split the difference to a 10 foot vertical jump: DC 40.

What kind of character would have this extraordinary ability?

This man looks pretty strong, but not like The Incredible Hulk. Let's give him an STR of 16 (+3 Ability), Acrobatics feat (+2), and athletic shoes (+1) for a +6 out the gate. Even taking a 20 (even if not permitted in the rules, he is in a safe, non-combat setting with spotters, so I would allow it), he still needs another 14 skill points to get close, meaning at a maximum of 3+CL ranks in class-skills per level, he is at minimum level 11.

UPDATE

and bring some good evidence in the comments (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Highest-standing-jump/photo/10921476/7691.html) to the table that the stack is probably 5 feet tall, making the DC a 36 instead of 40, lowering the minimum requirements to 10 skill points and therefore level 7 is the minimum.﻿
1

The stack of blocks is probably 5'6" tall (1 x 12", 1 x 18", 1 x 36"); the average male height in the US is just over 5'10". (edited because maths)﻿

So that decreases the DC to 38, meaning at least level 10.﻿

I've been watching it a bunch and I think the crappy camera phone quality distorted the sizes of the blocks. It might honestly only be 5' tall: 1 x 12", 2 x 24". That would put the jumper at ~5'8". Does that change your math at all?﻿

I originally started with a 5 foot stack, but then I spotted the man in the back holding the boxes. I didn't want to make him just over five feet. Short men do occur, but it didn't seem likely. Your estimate of 5'6" seems closer than a full 6 feet.﻿

well, I don't think the Blocks are that tall. According to Guinness (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Highest-standing-jump/photo/10921476/7691.html) the highest Vertical Jump onto a platform is 4'8", in 2010. This could be a new record we are seeing, but I don't think it would be that much higher. So if we consider the stack is 4'8" or close to it. The Man is Head and Shoulders higher than the boxes, So at least a foot taller. But also, this is at least close to a world record, this has to be at higher DC, Though he has obviously trained, so he has several Ranks in Jump. I think he rolled a 19.﻿

There is something that may be modifying the height of the other men, especially the ones behind the boxes. the jumper and the boxes seem to be on some sort of platform. So that would skew the height relation to the men comming up from behind the boxes, since they are on the floor.﻿

I would totally agree with Terry's first point, if only because human limitation is what it is, but standard gymnastic blocks don't come in sizes smaller than 12" (and I think the scale indicates the top block is about that tall). Even if we assume the bottom two are only twice that size at 24" each (because I don't honestly think they're only 1.5x taller), the stack is still 5' tall - a full 4" higher than the 4'8" record. Plus, given the relative heights of the men surrounding the stack, if you assume 4'8", the shortest man there is only about 5' tall, and the tallest only about 5'8". A gym full of significantly-shorter-than-average men seems unlikely.

As for the man behind the box, I think he's potentially standing on floor mats, which would make determining his height a problem.﻿

Damn you Steve.. I am nerding out way to much over this.. and I blame you. LOL﻿

Post amended with an update! That's what geekery is all about Terry! Where would D&D nerds be without rule-bandying? This is how you hone your ad-hoc abilities! Next time a standing vertical jump comes up in a game, you can recall this discussion and make a fair judgment.﻿

And, if the stack is 5' tall, it would certainly indicate a new record. :)﻿

Ah, very nice . That additional +5 from the feats and other skills reduces the rank requirement to only +5! This means a mere level 2 Expert could achieve a Jump check of 36 on a 20 (natural or taken).

actually, it's an interesting question as I would say that the dc wouldn't be constant.

I tend not to scale dcs soley on the difficulty of the task but also on the tension of the scene
ie - would failing be interesting?

of course - I tend to err on the side of abstraction myself as a dm, and really have no problem with ignoring rules to make a better story. on the other side, overcoming a challenge DOES make for a very emotional moment in game, so it's a balance﻿

I think personally I'd rule he couldn't take 20 or even 10, there is a penalty for failure, no world record! And there is certainly a lot at stake and a fair amount of stress if he's being filmed and watched by Guinness officials.

Whilst this won't affect the DC it would mean he would likely be a far higher level to get the skill bonus to a point whereby he can succeed with just a decent roll (probably pushes him up to Level 15+ Expert if he feels confident enough to try).﻿

Well put. There are plenty of things that are possible, but rolling a 10 or higher is a lot easier than nailing a 20.

And, because the DC is a lot more attainable, I would probably remove the ability to take that 20.﻿

Now here comes the question. Should the DC even be attainable by say a non-athletic Wizard / Cleric even if a 20 was Rolled. Physically this type of feat would not be possible. (Unless you could possibly rule that a Cleric who rolled a 20 was given Divine assistance, or a Wizard unconsiously changed reality by a small degree to make it possible for him/her.)﻿

I don't know, I would say the dc on the jump , Like this one, would be high , but not unobtainable. Remember that jumping is a skill, and alot would depend on how many skill points a person would place in said skill. (i.e Gell has a jumping skill of 25 but other have a significant lower score like 5 or 6. Gell would have an easier time at that than ,say like Allay.) (Besides I know our wizard. Why Jump , when one can FLYYYYYYYYYY?) Anyway, end result, I would assign something like this a High DC like 30 or 31. IMHO)﻿

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Jump_Skill

OK, given that the standing jump in D&D, according to the SRD, is effectively a hop and not a vertical jump (as provided in the OP's presupposition), the math of it all would need to be redone with that in mind.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Jump_Skill#Hop_Up

Objects as tall as your waist count as 10' of movement with an inherent DC of 10. Every <increment> above that would add multiplicative, if not exponential, levels of difficulty, IMO. Since "waist-high" is subjective - halflings' waists are significantly lower than half-orcs' - the incremental adjustments would have to be done based on that rather than on X ft.

So for this guy, the top of the boxes is at, let's say, 5/6 his total height, an additional 66% multiplier of difficulty. Keep in mind that he likely has Tumble and Acrobatics, which add to his particular Jump check, meaning the DC could still be seemingly unobtainably high.

It would be right for the DC to be pretty ridiculous, as this is not a feat achievable by the untrained - but Jump isn't a trained skill, so...﻿

True, it should not be unattainable by most taller warrior-like / Athletic classes. and if you have a method of flying then this is moot. But logically thinking. No one has yet done a standing jump that is equal to thier own height. Figure about 1 foot lower, (estimation) So even the most athletic of smaller races (gnome, dwarf, etc.) could not hope to make something akin to what a Human, Orc, etc. could to. Even if my Dwarf Cleric in Full Plate were to roll a 20, he should quite gracefully fall on his face if attempting such a thing. The only way he could succeed is with outside assistance.

Nice comment Carrissa.﻿

Who wants to bust out some stepwise logarithmics? Gauntlet thrown.﻿

Ah, but full plate has that problem built in with a -9 (I believe) Armor Check penalty. Rolling a 20 doesn't mean automatic success in most cases. It is a shortcut to avoid tedious calculation.﻿

As Carissa mentioned earlier, that the DC is dependant on things like size, because a "hop" to waist high is a DC of 10. Would the DC change for creatures that have different Muscular Builds, IE catpeople or Satyrs, or even Minotaurs and Centaurs since they could have muscular builds like their animal counterparts, would the DC inheirently be lower for them? Though Minotaurs / Centaurs may not get any sort of bonus (other than their normal Str bonus) simply due to their size / weight. Cats and Goats are known to leap, hop far in excess of thier body size.﻿

Ok, so I did some too much work on the math for this, but I came out with 5(2^(1/(6/4)))^x.

Plug that into google (or better: wolfram, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5%282%5E%281%2F%286%2F4%29%29%29%5Ex+from+x%3D0+to+x%3D5).

The interesting bit is the 6/4. 6 for the creature's height in feet. 4 for a quadrupling in difficulty at each step, not just doubling as suggested. It was just too easy a DC for something nearly impossible (15.874). A quadrupling for each waist-increment (half a creature's height) gives the DC for a 6 foot creature onto a 5 foot platform at 50. Epically difficult, but not impossible for someone epically trained.

Correction:
5(2^(1/(6/4)))^x -10
(The -10 is to make half-height = 10)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5%282%5E%281%2F%286%2F4%29%29%29%5Ex+-10+from+x%3D0+to+x%3D5

5-foot DC is 40.﻿