Manuever: Sudden Leap Abuse

[Kuroimaken]

A flight speed is not defined as jumping off of air. It is defined as, well, flying. There are specific rules for it which include whether you can keep yourself aloft by beating your wings and whatnot. Jumping defines that you make a check, go a certain distance, and fall the rest if you don't have enough of a movement speed to cover the full trip.

BUT at no point does it state you have to begin movement in a place with a steady foothold. One might argue it doesn't need it, because it's supposed to be obvious. That argument doesn't hold when characters can explicitly break the laws of physics or logic on a whim - including but not limited to the possibility of, say, a gnome with 40 strength, which would make him able to lift 5-6 adults as a light load, in spite of lacking the leverage or mass to actually pull it off.

Frankly, when you take that in consideration, I have no issue with the idea of someone kicking the air so hard that air resistance provides him/her with enough thrust to leap again in midair.

[zook1shoe]

When you run out of movement in midair, you complete the jump using actions on your next turn. You don't just randomly fall 87% through the jump.

it only says your next move action completes the jump, not that it must cover the amount of movement needed (thri-kreen can jump farther than their base speed can move)

[Kuroimaken]

Whatever the case, my point remains: there is nothing that prevents you from taking a second movement action in midair.

[SorO_Lost]

A flight speed is not defined as jumping off of air. It is defined as, well, flying.

Maybe to you when you're arguing on the forums like an inexperienced noob. Oxford says it's moving through the air while in control. D&D says flying is "A creature that has a natural fly speed can move through the air at the noted speed."

Which is you are attempting to do with Jump, and falling.

There are specific rules for it which include whether you can keep yourself aloft by beating your wings and whatnot.

Yeah, it's called Hover and you need Good or Perfect Maneuverability for that, and to have Maneuverability you need a Fly Speed. Like a Wizard Hovering in the air thanks to a Spell, or a Fighter wearing Boots of Gravity which an item that lets the wearer choose which way they fall (mechanically grants a fly speed btw), or a ghost who walks on nothing (again fly speed), or my personal favorite anyone in a subjectivity plane (like claiming gravity is ignored in favor of rejumping, again fly speed).

Even rules precedent dislikes you.

Jumping defines that you make a check, go a certain distance, and fall the rest if you don't have enough of a movement speed to cover the full trip.

Incorrect.
"Long Jump: A long jump is a horizontal jump, made across a gap like a chasm or stream. At the midpoint of the jump, you attain a vertical height equal to one-quarter of the horizontal distance. The DC for the jump is equal to the distance jumped (in feet). If your check succeeds, you land at the far end. ...
High Jump: A high jump is a vertical leap made to reach something overhead. ... If you fail the Jump check, you don’t reach the height, and you land in the space you jumped from.
Hop Up: You can jump up onto an object as tall as your waist with a DC 10 Jump check."
You do not make a Jump Check to move, you make a Jump check to clear a gap or to reach something overhead. Success/Failure having their own consequences but as written you ironically cannot make Jump to jump into the air for the sake of such. RAWtarded is retarded.

And if your purpose was to be a dumbass jumping sideways at any point, well the success of such makes you land so gj.

BUT at no point does it state you have to begin movement in a place with a steady foothold. One might argue it doesn't need it, because it's supposed to be obvious.

D&D's rule structure is about what you can do, not what you can't.

Like the rules don't say if I roll a d20 vs DC 1 I won't ever have see a terrible reply like this again.

Rolled 1d20 : 10, total 10

That argument doesn't hold when characters can explicitly break the laws of physics or logic on a whim

This fallacy is so bad I can't even think of a second sentence.

Frankly, when you take that in consideration, I have no issue with the idea of someone kicking the air so hard that air resistance provides him/her with enough thrust to leap again in midair.

And my opinion says nope.

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

Whatever the case, my point remains: there is nothing that prevents you from taking a second movement action in midair.

Your point had nothing to stand up.

Pun entirely intended.

[Kuroimaken]

Oxford says it's moving through the air while in control. D&D says flying is "A creature that has a natural fly speed can move through the air at the noted speed."

We don't use dictionaries to define rules.

Incidentally, that definition is so broad that, going by its strictest reading, any creature that can jump has a flight speed. Because that's what you do when you jump, however briefly.

Yeah, it's called Hover and you need Good or Perfect Maneuverability for that, and to have Maneuverability you need a Fly Speed. Like a Wizard Hovering in the air thanks to a Spell, or a Fighter wearing Boots of Gravity which an item that lets the wearer choose which way they fall (mechanically grants a fly speed btw), or a ghost who walks on nothing (again fly speed), or my personal favorite anyone in a subjectivity plane (like claiming gravity is ignored in favor of rejumping, again fly speed).

Even rules precedent dislikes you.

Your point about this being?

D&D's rule structure is about what you can do, not what you can't.

Actually, when the rules need you to NOT be able to do something, it pretty much tells you you can't.

Case in point: strictly by RAW, a rogue could take epic bonus feats before 21st level by taking the class feature that gives him bonus feats, which also doesn't tell him he has to qualify for them. A line which you'll see in pretty much any other class feature that provides you with a feat either way (monk says you don't have to meet prereqs, for example, but gives you a smaller list to pick from). I'm not saying necessarily it's what you're SUPPOSED to do, only that strictly by the rules, it is POSSIBLE to do so.

You know, same as I'm arguing for double jumping.

And my opinion says nope.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I can't force you to be right.

My point being that if you decide to apply actual logic to D&D rules to make them work with reality, you get crazy rules sets like alternate HP systems which don't work.

You have yet to provide me with a rules quote that says you can't take a second move action in midair. Mostly because it doesn't exist. Otherwise any flying character could only ever take one action to move, which is not the case.

Going strictly by what is (not) written in the Jump skill description, you can leap in midair. Anything that says you can't is derivation. While it would certainly be within DM fiat to say otherwise, that's not RAW.

Oh yeah, by the by, going strictly by D&D rules characters also don't have to shower (they can - it's just that not doing so has no detrimental effects whatsoever), excrete (in spite of the presence of sewer systems in lots of campaign setting cities) or have sex to reproduce (no rules for getting it on, unless those noted on the Book of Erotic Fantasy, which is third-party. And half-dragons can be anything corporeal, which means that dragon jizz is somehow able to bond to any kind of DNA. All it takes is one lonely Young Red Dragon whacking it over a hydrangea for us to have fire-breathing flowers).

Really SorO, I'm not going to concede the point, and neither will you. You can lay on all the ad hominem you like, better people than you have tried.

[SorO_Lost]

Incidentally, that definition is so broad that, going by its strictest reading, any creature that can jump has a flight speed. Because that's what you do when you jump, however briefly.

Except being propelled and then falling isn't controlled movement. >.>

Your point about this being?

D&D defines controlled movement through the air as flight.

Case in point: strictly by RAW, a rogue could take epic bonus feats before 21st level by taking the class feature that gives him bonus feats,

Strictly RAW he can't. The rules operate on a layered system similar to class-based programming. Rogue states he may gain a Feat, no exception is provided to the base rules and therefor they still hold. He needs to meet requirements for both selection, and more importantly, usage.

Your short comings are to be expected I suppose. I've rarely seen you ever argue with anyone in the 3.5 area, and now I can see why.
Some heads up.

A. Learn D&D's Order of Rules.
Original printing is buried in the DMG somewhere (or PHB?), I just use the RCs since it replaces prior existing rules. Often the lack of text in a specific entry is already covered by a an inherited rule the entry is based on or uses.

B. Learn DMG's forced rule translation.
Actually quoted it for you, everything you do must fit into either the written rules or the DM's house rules. You must have a rule supporting you or it don't happen.

C. Learn the Core Mechanic.
If you have a chance to fail, you roll a d20 against a DC. This is the most base rule in all of D&D subject to being overwritten by every other rule. Like you want to stand in the air can be countered with gravity. Since "standing in the air" has a chance to fail (100%), you are now forced to roll a die on it. No DM equals no DC equals auto cannot-prove-otherwise.

D. Learn RAW is based on willful ignorance of communication.
In other words, trolling & douchebaggery. Technically against the rules, but mods are loose enough here you'll bore most people to death long before the mods care.

E. Learn your fallacies.
HP does not create a point you can stand on air nor does Wizard casting Swift Fly does not allow a Kobold Fighter to clap his hands and fly to the moon. I think these types of fallacies are so stupid they don't deserve a name. A name fallacy is what happens when you attempt forced ambiguously in a game term to mean something in the real world. Like saying Grease is flammable or base land movement is flight because one is short handed to "speed" under the Speed entry. The fallacy of association was posted by some guy named stormwind and like Edison he stole all the credit to it.

F. Learn your opinion is the reason you are wrong.
The Scientific Method is based on testing first, then forming a hypothesis, then rigorous attempts to prove the hypothesis incorrect. To be honest, the forums can help on that last part there as a short cut. *whistles innocently* But people often skip the first part and create their own wild theories without any evidence, and then for some reason become enraged or shocked when they learn how wrong they are. Kind of like you.

There is plenty more, but I don't have time to work on a real list for you. I hope they help.

Really SorO, I'm not going to concede the point, and neither will you. You can lay on all the ad hominem you like, better people than you have tried.

Ahh the ad hominem closer from that staples guy with a superiority complex acting like an idiot. I forgot to include that one.

G. Never state anything that insults you even further.
You do know, like saying people better than me can't convince you of anything. It's admittance to being bull-headed and similar, less polite, terms.

[Kuroimaken]

Except being propelled and then falling isn't controlled movement. >.>

You're going from point A to point B strictly as desired. Sure seems controlled to me.

Strictly RAW he can't. The rules operate on a layered system similar to class-based programming. Rogue states he may gain a Feat, no exception is provided to the base rules and therefor they still hold. He needs to meet requirements for both selection, and more importantly, usage.

Except for every other example to the contrary. You're extrapolating based on the interpretation that's more comfortable to you. Anywhere else in the rulebooks, you see examples of class features that grant bonus feats explicitly telling you, one way or the other, about whether or not you must be able to take the feat in the first place. Thus, the assumption is, if the game wants you to fulfill requirements or not, it will tell you as much.

Again, this is an example where people slipped up in writing. But it is still a perfectly valid example of what I was talking about earlier.

A. Learn D&D's Order of Rules.
Original printing is buried in the DMG somewhere (or PHB?), I just use the RCs since it replaces prior existing rules. Often the lack of text in a specific entry is already covered by a an inherited rule the entry is based on or uses.

Specific trumps General. Does not apply in this case, because there is no specific ruling or general either way. What we have is a void.

B. Learn DMG's forced rule translation.
Actually quoted it for you, everything you do must fit into either the written rules or the DM's house rules. You must have a rule supporting you or it don't happen.

Funny enough, gravity is not a specific rule that still happens in D&D. By this definition, since you do not have a specific rule stating gravity is a thing, everything floats. Which, as we know, is not what happens. D&D does not have a specific ruling for everything, or else it would be called GURPS.

I mantain it is patently less ridiculous to admit the possibility of double-jumping than it is to say there is no gravity in D&D.

C. Learn the Core Mechanic.
If you have a chance to fail, you roll a d20 against a DC. This is the most base rule in all of D&D subject to being overwritten by every other rule. Like you want to stand in the air can be countered with gravity. Since "standing in the air" has a chance to fail (100%), you are now forced to roll a die on it. No DM equals no DC equals auto cannot-prove-otherwise.

Lots of people have sleep apnea. It's common. Even more common is death from the complications it brings. You don't see a DM testing for the chance of genetic disease in every character that could potentially lead to their deaths, even though there's a chance of that happening. And again, by your logic, even a character who's able to hover would fall, since the chance to fail "standing on air" is fixed. Which, by the way, I never said was a possibility. I DID say that, because there's no rules saying you need a solid foothold to leap, you can take a second move action to jump while still in midair. Sudden Leap still explicitly allows this even if you disagree with my interpretation, by the way, since it does not state you actually use the Jump skill to do it.

D. Learn RAW is based on willful ignorance of communication.
In other words, trolling & douchebaggery. Technically against the rules, but mods are loose enough here you'll bore most people to death long before the mods care.

RAW is based on strict interpretation of text. It's also the only interpretation that, most of the time, will give you the same results no matter who's reading it. It is consistent, and not subject to DM whim, which is why I take it as a standard.

I have mentioned already several times that following strict RAW can lead to ludicrous results. Especially when you get to points where it isn't clear. But you should know what it is even if that's just so you can claim "this rule is stupid and I'm tossing it".

E. Learn your fallacies.
HP does not create a point you can stand on air nor does Wizard casting Swift Fly does not allow a Kobold Fighter to clap his hands and fly to the moon. I think these types of fallacies are so stupid they don't deserve a name. A name fallacy is what happens when you attempt forced ambiguously in a game term to mean something in the real world. Like saying Grease is flammable or base land movement is flight because one is short handed to "speed" under the Speed entry. The fallacy of association was posted by some guy named stormwind and like Edison he stole all the credit to it.

We also have this thing around here named the Monkey Circlejerk Fallacy, wherein one will try to disqualify another's argument by calling it a fallacy, while creating a fallacy him or herself.

F. Learn your opinion is the reason you are wrong.
The Scientific Method is based on testing first, then forming a hypothesis, then rigorous attempts to prove the hypothesis incorrect. To be honest, the forums can help on that last part there as a short cut. *whistles innocently* But people often skip the first part and create their own wild theories without any evidence, and then for some reason become enraged or shocked when they learn how wrong they are. Kind of like you.

I'm not even sure how best to respond to that. You are severely lacking a mirror there.

G. Never state anything that insults you even further.
You do know, like saying people better than me can't convince you of anything. It's admittance to being bull-headed and similar, less polite, terms.

That wouldn't be particularly difficult, since people better than you will undoubtedly at least see the futility of trying to convince me of something which I am reasonably sure of. People better than you would know that there's no point in continuing to argue this, because you won't change my mind any more than I will change yours. People better than you would have agreed to disagree if nothing else because the time spent on this argument would be more productively spent elsewhere.

People better than you would also have more amusing insults to fling my way.

Long story short, I'm calling an end to this debacle, mostly because regardless of the outcome, we won't change a thing about the way people game. Those who agree with me will use double jumps, those who agree with you won't. It's a simple fact.

Here, you can have the last word if you like. I don't need it. 

[vaz]

If everything is made of atoms and atoms are primarily empty space, then you're propelling yourself off primarily empty space.

Talking of mundanes, you guys are boring as well.

[SorO_Lost]

Talking of mundanes, you guys are boring as well.

I could try a little song and dance, but there would be a lot of hip thrusting and an audience member would become pregnant.

[Endarire]

Hood.