[3.5] Abrupt Jaunt

[ksbsnowowl]

Blink isn't teleport, ethereal isn't astral, and if you can't see that you have to change momentum if you teleport to the far side of the planet, discussing this with you is pointless. I'm not really sure you even understand the word momentum. Losing all momentum isn't a thing I ever suggested, it would be as fatal as having the wrong momentum.

Spacemonkey, you've been having this entire conversation with your definition of "relative momentum" being relative to the sun/solar system.  We're talking about momentum being relative to (an effectively stationary) earth.

Nothing in the D&D rules says that the prime material plane actually revolves around the sun.  In fact, many of the rules within D&D point to the possible construction of cosmologies where that factually isn't the case.

Everyone else in this discussion is responding on the premise that the earth, for all intents and purposes, doesn't move.  That's the 'relative' of relative momentum we are discussing.

My opinion: You can subtract the 10 feet jaunted from your total falling damage.  The character's momentum relative to the earth doesn't instantaneously change just because he instantly moved from one spot to another.

[Kethrian]

Blink isn't teleport, ethereal isn't astral, and if you can't see that you have to change momentum if you teleport to the far side of the planet, discussing this with you is pointless. I'm not really sure you even understand the word momentum. Losing all momentum isn't a thing I ever suggested, it would be as fatal as having the wrong momentum.

Again you are trying to reference absolute momentum, not relative.  With your logic, I just have to stand away from you in the direction the planet is travelling and activate an Immovable Rod, and you'll die because it stays in place, while you keep moving with the planet, at the same velocity.

And, again, who is to say that the world you're on in D&D is a globe?  why can't it be an infinite flat plane?  or a cube?  Or a ring, like Sigil?  How would your teleport logic work on those kinds of worlds?  This is why D&D inherently uses relative momentum.

Blink and Teleport shift you to a transitive plane, then back.  Ethereal and Astral both have no gravity.  Similar enough for me.  You haven't given anything even remotely close to that as a possible rule interpretation in your favour.

[Hallack]

I like to go with simplicity and fun not what makes since in the real world.  We are talking about magic afterall. 

If I had to pick one I'd pick no conservation of momentum but as a DM I am somewhat open to using it either way depending on what the Teleporter is needing and wanting.

Afterall, if momentum and position are conserved then Teleporting to the other side of a round world you appear on your head.  Yeah, I say you can change position with Teleportation as well, ie... stand up from prone, which is one of the things a buddy and I have gone around on.

[spacemonkey555]

Again you are trying to reference absolute momentum, not relative.  With your logic, I just have to stand away from you in the direction the planet is travelling and activate an Immovable Rod, and you'll die because it stays in place, while you keep moving with the planet, at the same velocity.

You're confused. There is nothing in the text of immovable rod that indicates it moves relative to your frame of reference after you plant it. It's based on levitate, it floats above where you place it. Do you think levitated people fly off in a random direction too?

And, again, who is to say that the world you're on in D&D is a globe?  why can't it be an infinite flat plane?  or a cube?  Or a ring, like Sigil?  How would your teleport logic work on those kinds of worlds? 

My logic would work fine on those worlds, just like it does on a normal world. No momentum to modify, or the spell will figure it out. It's magic, it doesn't have to explain itself to you. That's how I said it would work in my very first post. I assumed a normal world, but even in the most horrible setting, it isn't supposed to matter, unless the rules say it does.

This is why D&D inherently uses relative momentum.

Since you won't support this I guess it's not really a rule.

Blink and Teleport shift you to a transitive plane, then back.  Ethereal and Astral both have no gravity.  Similar enough for me.  You haven't given anything even remotely close to that as a possible rule interpretation in your favour.

I haven't said once that the rules must be as I say, that would be absurd since the rules don't say either way. I just assumed you had a rule to quote since you stated your opinion as fact.

[spacemonkey555]

Spacemonkey, you've been having this entire conversation with your definition of "relative momentum" being relative to the sun/solar system. 

Wat? I talked about momentum relative to the earth, because the average person understands how the earth spins to create day/night cycles. Never once mentioned the sun, seasons, orbital mechanics, or anything else. The assumption that the sun is a chariot circling the earth or whatever other mythology is fine if the dm says so, but I don't remember reading in a book that that was the standard assumption for dnd.

[ksbsnowowl]

Wat? I talked about momentum relative to the earth...

If you were talking about momentum relative to the earth, then it doesn't matter if the earth is spinning or not.  That however, is not what you've been arguing.

The earth only "spins" insofar as you are looking at it from outside the earth (ie - outside it's atmosphere and/or gravity well).  Ergo, if you are arguing that relative momentum includes differences in effect from the earth's rotation, then you are arguing from a point relative to the solar system (or greater).

Relativism must be defined by your "stationary point*," as in actuality, all of space is moving.  "Relative to the Earth" means that, for the sake of the argument, the earth is the stationary point.

Edit: *more accurately, the "stationary point of observation."

[Kethrian]

There is nothing in the text of immovable rod that indicates it moves relative to your frame of reference after you plant it. It's based on levitate, it floats above where you place it. Do you think levitated people fly off in a random direction too?

I talked about momentum relative to the earth, because the average person understands how the earth spins to create day/night cycles.

Which is it then?  Do you take the reference from a person not moving on the surface of the world, or from the spin of the earth?  You can't have it both ways.  Either the Immovable Rod does not move relative to the surface, and teleporters can still fall straight toward the ground with the same velocity they teleported with; or the Rod stays still and you, standing on the world's surface, slam into it at high speeds and die, and the teleporter must worry about getting launched into space if he travels a quarter of the way around the world laterally.

It's magic, it doesn't have to explain itself to you.

So then your whole argument is moot.

This is why D&D inherently uses relative momentum.

Since you won't support this I guess it's not really a rule.

I haven't said once that the rules must be as I say, that would be absurd since the rules don't say either way. I just assumed you had a rule to quote since you stated your opinion as fact.

Did I declare it was fact, or did you merely misinterpret my opinion as fact?  Granted, I did give precedent with the Blink rules, and there have been no examples to the contrary, so my opinion is currently better supported than yours, so I guess I can't blame you for that mistake...

[spacemonkey555]

Well, now you're just cherrypicking out of context and trying to put words into my mouth about how certain items and spells should be lethal due to physics when that's the exact opposite of what I said to begin with. I'm done with you.

[Kethrian]

Actually, I was just cherry-picking how you contradict yourself every couple of posts.  If you can't stay on target...