[Jumping] Simpler, alternate formula that works for low Move

[ArchonShiva]

So, I had a Move 3.75 dwarf that got very close to breaking the jumping rules, and I figured maybe that subtraction in the formula made no sense whatsoever.

After some attemptsm I came upon this, which seems too simple not to be the actual rule:
Long Jump: Move x16" (or Jumping x8")
High Jump: Move x4" (or Jumping x2")
Half without preparation, up to double with running start.

It's slightly harsher on high move characters, but I think Move 9 edges on world records.

Of course it means Jump becomes a constant multiple of Move, which seems more realistic than a curve to me.

[Varyon]

Luke has what I think is a decent formula on his site, but that involves some squaring (note you can just change "meters" to "yards," as the equation assumes a Move in meters/second to start with). Normalizing to Move 5, getting rid of the squares means a long jump of Move*5", a high jump of Move*2.5". At least for the first, you'll want to add stride length - the linear dimension, or 72" for a human - back in. This is because how far you can jump is actually how far you can propel yourself through the air added to how far you can move in a single step. Otherwise, you can end up with a character who can move further by stepping than by jumping as he steps.

[Flyndaran]

Did you forget that you get to replace Move with Jumping skill divided by two?
It makes Move only matter for fast characters.
Even slug-men with Move 1 get to jump further than unskilled humans as long as skill is above 10.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

So, I had a Move 3.75 dwarf that got very close to breaking the jumping rules, and I figured maybe that subtraction in the formula made no sense whatsoever.

After some attemptsm I came upon this, which seems too simple not to be the actual rule:
Long Jump: Move x16" (or Jumping x8")
High Jump: Move x4" (or Jumping x2")
Half without preparation, up to double with running start.
e.

Could you explain what problem you are trying to fix and why your formulas works better?

[ArchonShiva]

Sorry, I was avoiding repeating rules.

High jump is (Move x 6) - 10"
Long Jump is (Move x 2) - 3'

They break down completely below Move 2, giving negative results.
They also have an an issue where the amount of "correction" means that for high Move values they will scale almost directly with Move and with each other, but at PC levels they don't.

These work for lower Move values, always scale with each other, and scale with Move. I picked 16 and 4 so that they would give nice round numbers for fractional move, as well as adjust well to using Jumping skill instead (18 and 5 would have been closer to the GURPS numbers).

The real fix is some variant of Gulliver rules, but that's too much math for a basic calculation.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

Sorry, I was avoiding repeating rules.

High jump is (Move x 6) - 10"
Long Jump is (Move x 2) - 3'

They break down completely below Move 2, giving negative results.
.

<shrug> Below Move 2 is only Move 1 (Basic Speed can have fractions but Ground Move doesn't). I have no trouble believing that a character only 20% as mobile as an average human is unable to jump in any meaningful way.

Even your formulas gave that Move 3 Dwarf a 6" standing High Jump. That's even less than the Basic Set formulas. Why bother?

[ArchonShiva]

I don't have the book handy, but I'm pretty sure the formula uses Basic Move, which does have fractions. Jumping/2 certainly does, so it'd be weird if it didn't.

Actually, Move 3 gives 8" under GURPS 4 and 12" under these rules. Doubled for a running start, that's 16" becoming 2 feet - which at least seems like a useful height. Move 2 already pretty much gives "cannot jump in any meaningful way" - 2" high and 1' long, which is a good deal less than simply walking.

The point isn't that 4e needs to be fixed, as this is usually irrelevant anyway, but that the formula seems needlessly complex, provides two answers in different units, and creates weird exceptions for no apparent reason.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

...Basic Move, which does have fractions.

No, Basic Move is Basic Speed without the fractional component. So if you have Basic Speed 5.75, your Basic Move is simply 5.

[ArchonShiva]

Originally Posted by Gnome

No, Basic Move is Basic Speed without the fractional component. So if you have Basic Speed 5.75, your Basic Move is simply 5.

You are indeed correct. It seems a bit silly, because both sprinting and encumbrance are fractional multipliers (and sprinting only gets rounded for tactical combat, using full value for actual running), and keeping the fraction would give more sensible results for races, but it is indeed the official rule. No wonder templates buy Basic Speed back down...

I've been playing with fractions for the aforementioned reasons, on top of maps for my next campaign having distinct half-yard demarcations, making 5.5 Move actually useful.

At any rate, the formula giving even better results when using fractions doesn't stop it from beating RAW at whole numbers.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Gnome

No, Basic Move is Basic Speed without the fractional component. So if you have Basic Speed 5.75, your Basic Move is simply 5.

I always ignore that idiocy. When fractions matter, of course you should use those instead.