Amusing Jump Detail

[Celebrim]

DIT: And, I've never seen anyone - other than here - who argued that the run up to the jump could be anything other than in the direction of the jump (or, at least, close to it).

I haven't either. Common sense tells you otherwise, situations were this would come up are rare, and I've been fortunate enough to not have any rules lawyerish players (or at least none that felt like pressing something that silly against me).

I'm just merely pointing out that unless you explicitly house ruled otherwise, a PC could legitimately get quite angry with you for overturning the rules if they actually did try to run opposite of the direction of the jump. That is, if the PC always expected the letter of the rules to apply in every circumstance.

 

[Pielorinho]

The only time in which I'd allow this to work would be if the character were running up to a wall and then leaping off of the wall in the opposite direction. In the following picture, O represents a buffalo, x represents a smaller buffalo, and | represents the leg of a dire buffalo:

O_x___|

If the baby buffalo wanted to jump over the buffalo, I might allow the baby buffalo to run to the right, bounce off the dire buffalo's leg, and leap backwards. Not because it'd be realistic necessarily, but because it'd be cool.

Daniel

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm just merely pointing out that unless you explicitly house ruled otherwise, a PC could legitimately get quite angry with you

No they couldn't, unless they were living in the land of stupid (and nobody plays with those guys anyway).

As my original post was supposed to emphasise, the 'rules' DO NOT attempt to spell out everything, and nor should they. Any DM who can't make common sense rulings without resorting to 'the rules' and any player who can't accept it shouldn't be playing IMO. And it is pretty rare that I'd say something like that.

The rules don't need to spell out anything that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

 

[Goolpsy]

This topic shouldn't even be argued, really... Its common logic sense. The rules say you can buy food, and probably also that you have to have food to survive.. but not that you HAVE TO EAT to stay alive.. so in theory you could buy the food, serving it for your monkey the next day...

Everything that happens, happen after the game starts.. to in theory you could be walking around without a heart in the start of the campaign, and brainless... still with int scores as stated on paper.. to before the game starts he cuts out his brain and heart and is fully alive when the game starts.. and may i many cases run around until he dies that way... those "in theory" jsut doesn't belong anywhere in serious rolegaming

 

[Celebrim]

This topic shouldn't even be argued, really... Its common logic sense.

I would have thought the same thing, but clearly you haven't been reading some of the other threads going on in the forum.

No they couldn't, unless they were living in the land of stupid (and nobody plays with those guys anyway).

I'm glad you said that, and not me.

The rules don't need to spell out anything that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Be prepared for a 300 post thread arguing the meaning of 'obvious', and whether or not you meant things are only obvious if you have exactly 50% of brain and no more or less.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Guy guys guys. Obvoiusly you've never played Mario 64. The second best way to gain height in a jump is to run one direction, and turn 180 degrees on a dime and leap the other direction in one swift move!
This is basic people!

 

[Infiniti2000]

Here's an example. Can you walk through a wall using d20 rules? Before reading this post, did you know that a rule specifically exists that says you can't walk through a solid wall? Did you think it necessary for that to be in the rules? IMO, it's on the same line as something like eating; which, by the way, I believe is specified as necessary in the rules in the D&D DMG under the rules on starvation (but maybe not).

 

[Celebrim]

IMO, it's on the same line as something like eating; which, by the way, I believe is specified as necessary in the rules in the D&D DMG under the rules on starvation (but maybe not).

I don't have the DMG available at the moment, but the SRD reads:

A character can go without food for 3 days, in growing discomfort. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.

It says nothing explicitly about eating the food, only that you have have some near you.

DM's better have a dictionary of phrases available so that they can clarify that phrase 'go without'.

Also, strictly under the rules, it only implies that you need to eat a meal every third day in order to avoid starvation. Actually, a character with decent consitution could stretch it to one meal every six days or so without suffering any ill effects under the rules.

I imagine that some DM's would have no problem whatsoever with this.

 

[werk]

This topic shouldn't even be argued, really... Its common logic sense. The rules say you can buy food, and probably also that you have to have food to survive.. but not that you HAVE TO EAT to stay alive.. so in theory you could buy the food, serving it for your monkey the next day...

What if you are an outsider? j/k

I think that it is funny because if you apply 'common sense logic' to the rules, they generally do not hold up, but in the absence of specific pre/proscription we rely completely on common sense logic.

That should be a rule!

 

[Pielorinho]

Also, strictly under the rules, it only implies that you need to eat a meal every third day in order to avoid starvation.

Strictly speaking, a meal is unnecessary; all that is necessary is food. Is a grain of rice "food" or isn't it?
My character's dietary needs just became a lot easier to satisfy. Thanks, Celebrim!

(This is a great example of why I think that an understanding of a strict rules interpretation is not always relevant, but rather, an understanding of what the rules probably intend is what we need.)

Daniel