Jumping as per RAW - Can you turn or jump in a different direction from your run up?

[Jerrykhor]

My Fighter with 17 strength wants to make a long jump, but due to the map terrain (we are standing on giant tree branches, i want to jump to another branch), i have to make my 10ft run up at a 90 degree angle from the jump (basically run 10ft then jump to the side). DM says no because its not RAI, and he says RAW is unclear. He also says it breaks the law of physics.

I think RAW is plenty clear on this, I don't see which part of the rules would be stopping me from this, unless I'm missing something. Reddit has shot me down for arguing that i can't assume I can jump sideways just because it doesnt say i can't. A lot of them are saying 'common sense' rule is RAW and long jump obviously must be in the same direction as the run up. Am i crazy for thinking RAW is very clear on this?

My other point is that the Charger feat explicitly states '10ft in a straight line' while long jump rules does not. We will never know if the lack of 'straight line' in the jumping rules is deliberate, but lets assume it is for now.

[Gurgeh]

The RAW doesn't make any mention of direction so it is plausible to parse it as allowing a jump in any direction (including directly opposite the direction of movement).

The DM is entirely within their rights to require a run-up in the same direction as the jump, however (and it's the ruling I would make if put in their shoes).

[JackPhoenix]

RAW *is* clear: The DM decides what you can or can't do. If he says you can't, then you can't, what's written in the book is irrelevant.

[GooeyChewie]

I think RAW is plenty clear on this, I don't see which part of the rules would be stopping me from this, unless I'm missing something.

I think the word 'immediately' stops you. You're trying to move 10 feet, make a sharp turn, then jump. To get the full distance you need to move 10 feet and immediately jump.

At the very least, the use of the word 'immediately' does not clearly say that you can turn before you jump (or in mid-air). I think your DM is right about RAI, and made a good ruling.

[stoutstien]

Why don't you jump at an angle? Assuming the branches are mostly running parallel with each other you should be able to get your run up and then jump at an acute angle and reach the next one.

[Dalinar]

RAW *is* clear: The DM decides what you can or can't do. If he says you can't, then you can't, what's written in the book is irrelevant.

I mean, sure, but isn't part of the fun of threads like these getting into silly arguments over what parts of the rules do/don't make sense irrespective of who's DMing? Same reason one wouldn't reasonably go to Eclectic Builds or similar threads to post builds involving their homebrew classes, etc.

RAW matters (for online discussions at least) because having an established convention for what is/isn't allowed is useful for sharing ideas between people who play D&D at different tables from each other.

[Slipjig]

Ok, RAW *technically* does not state that the run-up must be in the same direction as the jump. But this is ddeply silly on the same level as "there's nothing in the rules saying my summoned Pegasus CAN'T use a Greatsword" or "the spell description doesn't specify that this fire spell gives off light, therefore the square next to the raging inferno is still in darkness". There's enough complexity in this game that there's no way the Devs could cover every possible permutation of clownery that PCs come up with, so at some point you (both players and DM) have to apply some common sense to the rules.

Now, that is a little bit game dependent. If you are playing an extremely silly Wuxia game where characters are corkscrewing through the air while firing a longbow, why not? Let your PCs jump around like Super Smash Brothers characters if that's the tone of the game.

[Segev]

If I may make a suggestion: the RAW permit this, but you can make it more palatable in terms of verisimilitude by stunting it somehow. Perhaps you grab another branch to redirect your momentum and your jump is at least in part a swing around in a circle. Or you bounce off of another tree trunk to redirect your jump. Come up with something action-packed and exciting that makes your direction-shift "make sense," and then you're not pitting the RAW against verisimilitude.

[Unoriginal]

My Fighter with 17 strength wants to make a long jump, but due to the map terrain (we are standing on giant tree branches, i want to jump to another branch), i have to make my 10ft run up at a 90 degree angle from the jump (basically run 10ft then jump to the side). DM says no because its not RAI, and he says RAW is unclear. He also says it breaks the law of physics.

I think RAW is plenty clear on this, I don't see which part of the rules would be stopping me from this, unless I'm missing something. Reddit has shot me down for arguing that i can't assume I can jump sideways just because it doesnt say i can't. A lot of them are saying 'common sense' rule is RAW and long jump obviously must be in the same direction as the run up. Am i crazy for thinking RAW is very clear on this?

My other point is that the Charger feat explicitly states '10ft in a straight line' while long jump rules does not. We will never know if the lack of 'straight line' in the jumping rules is deliberate, but lets assume it is for now.

RAW doesn't run your campaign, your DM does.

[Psyren]

I would view running up in direction X and leaping in direction X to be a different challenge than running up in direction X and leaping in direction Y. I think the DM would be within their rights to demand a check for the latter even if the former is automatic - or conversely, if you're trying to exceed your jumping distance, they could set a different DC for the latter than they would the former, and modulate the result(s) accordingly.

[schm0]

The RAW is unclear and seemingly allows you you jump backwards after moving 10 feet forwards, amongst other strange interactions.

Others are correct to point out that many DMs are likely to scoff at this idea. The word "immediately" does seem to prevent this idea on the surface but I don't know if it's enough to make the case RAW. It seems obvious to me that this was not the intent.

[Blatant Beast]

Personally, I would let Jerrykhor, do the jump they want.
BG3 eliminates, the 10’ run up requirement, and I think that would be a useful change, overall, for D&D.

Strength could use some more love from the system.

[Jerrykhor]

Ok, RAW *technically* does not state that the run-up must be in the same direction as the jump. But this is ddeply silly on the same level as "there's nothing in the rules saying my summoned Pegasus CAN'T use a Greatsword" or "the spell description doesn't specify that this fire spell gives off light, therefore the square next to the raging inferno is still in darkness". There's enough complexity in this game that there's no way the Devs could cover every possible permutation of clownery that PCs come up with, so at some point you (both players and DM) have to apply some common sense to the rules.

Now, that is a little bit game dependent. If you are playing an extremely silly Wuxia game where characters are corkscrewing through the air while firing a longbow, why not? Let your PCs jump around like Super Smash Brothers characters if that's the tone of the game.

I dunno why does my argument makes people think im a rules lawyer finding ridiculous loopholes to my advantage. Is trying to imagine your character doing a turning jump or jump sideways comparable to arguing that Disintegrate doesnt say you are dead, so you are technically alive? Seriously, what? I had to convince people i was arguing in good faith.

There is a serious decline in imagination if people struggle to fathom how one can generate enough momentum to jump sideways. Maybe a slight hop to generate more spring in your jump before you turn? Jeez. This is a game of make believe, right?

[Jerrykhor]

I think the word 'immediately' stops you. You're trying to move 10 feet, make a sharp turn, then jump. To get the full distance you need to move 10 feet and immediately jump.

At the very least, the use of the word 'immediately' does not clearly say that you can turn before you jump (or in mid-air). I think your DM is right about RAI, and made a good ruling.

Immediately means you dont do something in between the run up and the jump. I wasn't trying to do that. Making turns during movement is not 'doing something'.

[JNAProductions]

RAW, you can run 5' back, 5' forward, and count as a running start.

How I would rule it is that if you're still in your front arc, you can count as a running start. If you're doing a turn greater than 90 degrees, either no or require a check.

[Sorinth]

I dunno why does my argument makes people think im a rules lawyer finding ridiculous loopholes to my advantage. Is trying to imagine your character doing a turning jump or jump sideways comparable to arguing that Disintegrate doesnt say you are dead, so you are technically alive? Seriously, what? I had to convince people i was arguing in good faith.

There is a serious decline in imagination if people struggle to fathom how one can generate enough momentum to jump sideways. Maybe a slight hop to generate more spring in your jump before you turn? Jeez. This is a game of make believe, right?

And when you told the DM what you wanted to do did you provide an imaginative way for how your sideways jump would happen?

[Jerrykhor]

The RAW is unclear and seemingly allows you you jump backwards after moving 10 feet forwards, amongst other strange interactions.

Others are correct to point out that many DMs are likely to scoff at this idea. The word "immediately" does seem to prevent this idea on the surface but I don't know if it's enough to make the case RAW. It seems obvious to me that this was not the intent.

And the notion of that just somehow blows peoples minds. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. The amount of times you would benefit from a backwards jump is very near to 0.

Its funny how mentioning 'you can jump backwards by RAW' leads to replies like 'i wouldn't allow that' or 'pretty sure that's not intended'.

[Jerrykhor]

And when you told the DM what you wanted to do did you provide an imaginative way for how your sideways jump would happen?

Admittedly at that time i didn't. I feel i didnt need to describe something that i already can do by the default rules, the same way a Fighter shouldn't have to describe how he heals himself with Second Wind after being stabbed by a spear. I wasn't begging the DM for some additional advantage or to bend the rules in my favour.

[GooeyChewie]

Immediately means you dont do something in between the run up and the jump. I wasn't trying to do that. Making turns during movement is not 'doing something'.

I do think making a 90-degree turn is doing something. This isn't a case of seamless movement; you stop running, then turn, then jump. At the very least, it's enough of "doing something" to make the RAW unclear.

[Jerrykhor]

Personally, I would let Jerrykhor, do the jump they want.
BG3 eliminates, the 10’ run up requirement, and I think that would be a useful change, overall, for D&D.

Strength could use some more love from the system.

I sure would use that as a house rule if i ever DM again. Its also easier to explain to newbies that 'you can jump X feet as a bonus action' rather than 'if you make a standing jump you can jump X but if you run at least 10 ft you can jump Y, but they must be in the same direction, and oh but you cant do that since your max speed is 25, but you can if you Dash.'

[Jerrykhor]

I do think making a 90-degree turn is doing something. This isn't a case of seamless movement; you stop running, then turn, then jump. At the very least, it's enough of "doing something" to make the RAW unclear.

By the definition of the rules, it is not. If you have 60 ft of speed, you can spend it by moving in any direction you want, even opposite directions. Jumping is not using any resource other than speed, so it is part of your movement.

What do you mean i stop running then jump? Isn't it the same assumption as assuming a Monk has stop running on water when his turn ends?

[Gurgeh]

Yes, you are absolutely using a loophole to generate a beneficial outcome to your character. There's not really any room for argument about that point, just whether or not your table is okay with it.

The DM isn't obliged to put their common sense on hold because the printed rules didn't include some obvious assumptions about momentum. In this case, they have decided that the rules aren't up to scratch. The gracious thing to do is to accept that and play on, not dig your heels in and cry foul about the DM doing exactly what they're supposed to do (i.e., make a ruling).

[Sorinth]

Personally, I would let Jerrykhor, do the jump they want.
BG3 eliminates, the 10’ run up requirement, and I think that would be a useful change, overall, for D&D.

Strength could use some more love from the system.

Yeah but in BG3 jumping has a base cost of 10ft of movement not too mention the bonus action.


Admittedly at that time i didn't. I feel i didnt need to describe something that i already can do by the default rules, the same way a Fighter shouldn't have to describe how he heals himself with Second Wind after being stabbed by a spear. I wasn't begging the DM for some additional advantage or to bend the rules in my favour.

I ask not because I think your trying to looking to bend the rules but just to point out that it's not really fair to push all the creative thinking onto the DM who already has a full plate.

Knowing myself there's a good chance I would have ruled exactly like your DM, but had the player provided some a creative explanation then I probably would have allowed it with a successful skill check.

[Jerrykhor]

Yes, you are absolutely using a loophole to generate a beneficial outcome to your character. There's not really any room for argument about that point, just whether or not your table is okay with it. What boggles my mind is that you not only don't seem to see it that way, but that you've run to this forum to try and find a bunch of sympathetic voices to back you up.

The DM isn't obliged to put their common sense on hold because the printed rules didn't include some obvious assumptions about momentum. In this case, they have decided that the rules aren't up to scratch. The gracious thing to do is to accept that and play on, not dig your heels in and cry foul about the DM doing exactly what they're supposed to do (i.e., make a ruling).

What is a forum for if not for arguing? If the point is that the DM is always right, then yes there's no room for ANY argument. I'm not arguing for a loophole, it's just that people think it is since they think it apparently breaks the law of physics.

And no, I'm not looking for people to agree with me. But i will admit i am argumentative. I don't appreciate your condescending tone. All I want is to reach an enemy on the other side to make a melee attack. Yet, lots of people make it seem like im a powergamer trying to gain an unfair advantage. Really? You can make a lot of assumptions about me, but seeking sympathetic voices is not one of them. I have left that table long time ago and i feel better for it, so you already know which hill im ready to die on.

I hate the 'common sense' argument. The whole point of having rules in the first place is because everyone's common sense is different.

[JackPhoenix]

What is a forum for if not for arguing? If the point is that the DM is always right, then yes there's no room for ANY argument. I'm not arguing for a loophole, it's just that people think it is since they think it apparently breaks the law of physics.

And no, I'm not looking for people to agree with me. But i will admit i am argumentative. I don't appreciate your condescending tone. All I want is to reach an enemy on the other side to make a melee attack. Yet, lots of people make it seem like im a powergamer trying to gain an unfair advantage. Really? You can make a lot of assumptions about me, but seeking sympathetic voices is not one of them. I have left that table long time ago and i feel better for it, so you already know which hill im ready to die on.

I hate the 'common sense' argument. The whole point of having rules in the first place is because everyone's common sense is different.

You got your answer, the rules don't say anything one way or the other. And the rules say the player describe what he tries to do, and the DM then decides how to resolve that, and it's in his right to follow or ignore the rules as he sees fit. What more do you want? There's nothing to argue about, unless you ARE looking for people who agree with you instead of your DM's interpretation.

[Gurgeh]

What is a forum for if not for arguing? If the point is that the DM is always right, then yes there's no room for ANY argument. I'm not arguing for a loophole, it's just that people think it is since they think it apparently breaks the law of physics.

And no, I'm not looking for people to agree with me. But i will admit i am argumentative. I don't appreciate your condescending tone. All I want is to reach an enemy on the other side to make a melee attack. Yet, lots of people make it seem like im a powergamer trying to gain an unfair advantage. Really? You can make a lot of assumptions about me, but seeking sympathetic voices is not one of them. I have left that table long time ago and i feel better for it, so you already know which hill im ready to die on.

I hate the 'common sense' argument. The whole point of having rules in the first place is because everyone's common sense is different.
I apologise for the harsher elements of my tone; they were disrespectful and unproductive.

You've shone a spotlight on an element of the game's rules that doesn't really make much sense when inspected closely, could probably could afford some tidying up, but is ultimately quite easy to live with - either make the necessary minor modifications or go with the flow and accept that the world operates with cartoon physics.

In your case, the DM opted for the first choice, and you seem upset about that because it means your character can't do the thing you want them to do.

So perhaps you could make your position a bit clearer - it might help everyone get down to the heart of the matter.

If you are unhappy that you didn't get to do the thing you wanted then that's entirely understandable, but it's also not really that relevant what the rules say at that point. The game is ultimately an exercise in collaborative storytelling, and every group will have its own dynamics and expectations. There are all sorts of ways to navigate these in-the-moment disagreements (for just a few hypotheticals: the DM could ask for strength(athletics) check in order to make the jump, they could say "yes but you only get to travel three-quarters of your str instead of the half you'd get from the standing jump", they could invite you to try and solve the problem a different way). Without knowing the personalities and history of the group I doubt there is any way for people here to give you useful advice.

If you think that the RAW for jumping make sense and that anyone ruling contrary to them is wrong then all I can say is that I disagree with you, and that taking this attitude to a table and rules-lawyering at the DM and other players is likely to antagonise them.

If your complaint or query is neither of these things - can you please lay it out clearly?

[JonBeowulf]

Your DM shot you down.
Reddit shot you down.
You're being shot down here.

You expected different results?

[Jerrykhor]

Its been a year since that incident, but every time i think about it i still get worked up. I dont know why but i feel very strongly about the whole thing. I remember going to a group meant for the strictest RAW discussions and got mostly 'you are technically right'. The DM went to some online group and got a 'You're the DM therefore you are right.' Does it mean that I don't accept that the DM is right? No, i have been playing for years, i already know that. I have accepted many DM's houserules, some more ridiculous than others and most made up on the spot.

What triggers me is that the DM argues that RAW is unclear, therefore he is making a ruling. But to me, RAW is very clear, so we were at an impasse. I left and never look back. I did apologize to the DM before leaving. It was the first time i quit a group this way.

When i think back, i remember this DM has made some weird rulings before and insisted they were RAW, like he thinks that you cannot shove a grapped creature away from the grappler to break grapple (also because he thinks its illogical). Nobody could convince him otherwise.

I'm mostly looking for views on 'how would you rule this', and 'is a turning jump breaking your versimilitude?'. But i also like discussions on parsing the rules. His 'RAW is unclear' really gets me, and I like to point out Greater Invisibility. Is GI unclear because it didn't explicitly state what you can do during invisibility and what will break it? No, it is perfectly clear because sometimes less is more. The problem is reading a rule that they disagree with and then assuming 'that must be a mistake, I'm sure its not intended'. They are assuming the intent, while i am just using the correct interpretation of the rules.

And I usually dont join in the martials vs casters debate, because thats on the designers. But if my Fighter cannot make a 90 degree jump just to get to his target because its illogical, while the magic users can choose to teleport, hurl spells or push/pull them off the branches because magic, i'm afraid the DM is just enabling them and nothing will change.

Funny how someone mention 'if you're playing a Wuxia style adventure'. Because while the campaign is not, my character was Wuxia inspired, and I try to speak a lot of Mandarin while RPing.

[Jerrykhor]

Your DM shot you down.
Reddit shot you down.
You're being shot down here.

You expected different results?

Do you have anything to add besides 'everyone says you are wrong therefore you must be?' I bet if i were the DM everyone would say my argument was right.

I dont get any prizes if everyone agree with me, so why should i care if they don't? Its just a game at the end of the day.

[Unoriginal]

Do you have anything to add besides 'everyone says you are wrong therefore you must be?' I bet if i were the DM everyone would say my argument was right.

If you had been the DM, you would have had the right to rule it that way.

It wouldn't have made your argument more correct. Nor did being the DM made your DM's argument more correct.

Jerrykhor, there is no such thing as "Rules As Written". Five people can lookst the same sentence and understand five different things.

It's "Rules as Read".



I dont get any prizes if everyone agree with me, so why should i care if they don't?

Because as you said, this happened a year ago and you still get worked up whenever you think of it.

Those are your own words to describe the situation.

That means you do care about this, on some level at least.

[GooeyChewie]

By the definition of the rules, it is not. If you have 60 ft of speed, you can spend it by moving in any direction you want, even opposite directions. Jumping is not using any resource other than speed, so it is part of your movement.
I don’t think the rules that that just because you haven’t used a resource other than speed, that you haven’t stopped moving. I can certainly see how one might draw that conclusion. At the same time, I can see how one would consider a movement with sharp turns in it to actually be a series of smaller movements. The fact that it can easily be interpreted two different ways is what makes the RAW unclear here.


What do you mean i stop running then jump? Isn't it the same assumption as assuming a Monk has stop running on water when his turn ends?

I mean that the RAW could be interpreted as there being a moment where you are in the process of making a sharp 90 degree turn, at which point you are neither moving nor have you started jumping, and thus that you did not move 10 feet immediately prior to the jump.

The monk question does raise an interesting point. If I move 10 feet at the end of one turn, don’t use a reaction before my next turn, then jump at the start of my next turn, would you say that I get my full jump distance?

Of course, if we really want to get into super-strict RAW, nothing in the Long Jump section says I have to be on the ground to jump. So I could argue that by RAW I just do a standing Long Jump three times in a row to get my 30 feet of movement with jumps. Just because something can be argued by an interpretation of RAW, doesn’t mean that it is the only interpretation of that RAW, the intended interpretation of that RAW, or that your DM is bound by that interpretation of the RAW (even if they intend to run a mostly RAW adventure).

[Blatant Beast]

Jumping is not using any resource other than speed, so it is part of your movement.

Yep, just as Climbing and Swimming are. This is why Jumping is bound to your movement speed, and why the Jump Action for the One D&D Playtest did not go over so well. If Jumping was a separate action like a Dash Action, then it would not be bound by one's movement speed.

Essentially, this is the route BG3 took.

I am not at all clear, on the point GooeyChewie is trying to make. (sorry Chewie).

[GooeyChewie]

I am not at all clear, on the point GooeyChewie is trying to make. (sorry Chewie).

A few points, actually.

1. Just because you haven’t used a different resource between the move and the jump doesn’t mean the jump happened immediately after the move. (You actually provide a great example. If you move 10 feet on foot, then swim for 5 feet, then jump, you clearly did not move on foot 10 feet immediately prior to the jump, even though the only resource you used is movement.)
2. Just because RAW can be read one way, doesn’t mean that way is the only way to read RAW. In the case of this thread, the original poster and their DM had two different, but both valid, readings of RAW.
3. A super-strict reading of RAW, especially on the basis of “it doesn’t say I can’t,” leads to silly scenarios. Even if an adventure is ostensibly being run “by rules as written,” those written rules should be read with a mind towards what they mean, rather than what you could technically construe as fitting within them. Despite the meme, “technically correct” is not the best kind of correct.

[Schwann145]

Am i crazy for thinking RAW is very clear on this?
Yes.
The RAW doesn't exist on this, so it cannot be "very clear" at all. The rules not saying something is not the same thing as the rules explicitly allowing for something.
For the RAW to be very clear on this, it would have to explicitly say, "at the end of the requisite 10ft movement, you may jump in any direction without losing the benefits of the movement." The RAW clearly does not say anything of the sort.


Is trying to imagine your character doing a turning jump or jump sideways comparable to arguing that Disintegrate doesnt say you are dead, so you are technically alive? Seriously, what?
Simply put? Yes. This is that kind of argument.


When i think back, i remember this DM has made some weird rulings before and insisted they were RAW, like he thinks that you cannot shove a grapped creature away from the grappler to break grapple (also because he thinks its illogical). Nobody could convince him otherwise.
There's nothing weird about that ruling at all. Consider: The rules around shoving say that if you successfully shove an opponent, you can move them 5ft or make them prone. It doesn't say anything about the condition of the target that is being shoved, other than being required to be in range and a limiting size component. So, RAW, you could successfully shove a target that is chained tightly to an immovable post 5ft away. How? Who tf knows how, but technically RAW doesn't say you can't. Do you find this to be reasonable?


And I usually dont join in the martials vs casters debate, because thats on the designers. But if my Fighter cannot make a 90 degree jump just to get to his target because its illogical, while the magic users can choose to teleport, hurl spells or push/pull them off the branches because magic, i'm afraid the DM is just enabling them and nothing will change.
Sorry, but this is a poor argument. The spellcasting character also cannot run 10ft in X direction and then gain that momentum for jumping in Y direction instead.
That's not how momentum works.

So, long story short, you are technically correct to say to your DM that the RAW doesn't say you can't. And your DM is technically correct to rule that this is silly nonsense because the whole point of movement before a jump is to build momentum in the direction you want to go, and to let that momentum carry you further than you would otherwise jump, and turning 90 degrees to jump robs you of 100% of that momentum.
It's a very common sense ruling, and you had such a problem with applying basic common sense to the situation that you quit the group and took your complaint to multiple different places, even as far out as a year later. You insist that you weren't trying to powergame the system for your benefit, but with a presentation like this, how are we supposed to conclude otherwise?

Can you present an argument for your position that is anything other than, " the RAW doesn't say I can't, so I should be able to?"
Because the RAW doesn't say a lot of things.
Can you explain how your request could possibly be logical, or rational? Can you present a case why momentum in X direction should apply for a change to Y direction? Any non-RAW argument at all?

[Pex]

What the DM says goes. If the DM says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

Personally a DM saying I couldn't jump off a different direction than I moved is not a game breaker for me, but it is not an outrageous blasphemy to ask for clarification here on whether the rules say I could do it after all. Many DMs are happy to make a ruling at the moment but upon learning the ruling was in error to fix it for future reference in case it happens again. If the DM still prefers his ruling that's fine, but it's still ok to know what the rule actually is. It's up to the individual player whether the now house rule ruins the game for him.

[Slipjig]

Funny how someone mention 'if you're playing a Wuxia style adventure'. Because while the campaign is not, my character was Wuxia inspired, and I try to speak a lot of Mandarin while RPing.

I'd say the character inspiration is much less important than the tone of the table. If everybody wants to play a Wuxia game with Looney Tunes physics, that could be a lot of fun. But if you are at a table that is operating on a more realistic set of rules, you need to respect that as a player, regardless of your character's inspirations.

Again, I think RAW is imprecisely worded enough that you are technically correct. And as primarily a martial plauer, I can sumpathize with the irritation with DM's that build "interesting terrain" that massively hinders the martials (but not, of course, the casters). But let's play reductio ad absurdium with this argument: you are in a hallway 1" wider than your character. Could you use the available space to bounce back and forth between the walls 120 times, and then double your jump distance? A genuinely literal reading of RAW would allow this, but it's such an absurd proposition that I can't imagine a DM who would say yes to it.

[huttj509]

I think something to highlight how much it can depend on the specifics, and *why* it is in the DMs hands is to bring up something that happened to me.

I wanted to jump through a trapped area, but there wasn't enough room to get a straight runup. But there was a long hallway before turning into the part I wanted to jump.

In that situation, while I was kinda wanting to do a jump at 90 degrees to my line of motion, the idea of getting a good run going, rounding a corner while trying to preserve speed, and then doing a jump shortly after rounding the corner was much easier to figure out if it seemed reasonable than the straight battlemap might make it seem.

In this case it seems different. Where you're wanting to run straight along the branch and with no room to maneuver use your full jump distance horizontal to your path of motion.

If there were a significant forward factor I'd find it easier to reason in "ok, you're running forward, leap off to the side and just manage to grab onto the neighboring branch and clamber up" even if I needed to wiggle the math a bit, as long as it wasn't hugely out of range. But it *really* depends on the situation at hand.

[Jerrykhor]

Can you present an argument for your position that is anything other than, " the RAW doesn't say I can't, so I should be able to?"
Because the RAW doesn't say a lot of things.
Can you explain how your request could possibly be logical, or rational? Can you present a case why momentum in X direction should apply for a change to Y direction? Any non-RAW argument at all?

My point is that the omission of the wording 'moving in a straight-line' allows me to do so. Have you read my Greater Invisibility argument? It has less words than Invisibility, but more things allowed. They have been writing rules like this all the time. This distinction is important because there are other things in the book that specifically require straight line movement, such as Charger feat, and Totem Barbarian (Tiger). A lot of creatures in the monster manual that have the Charge ability also requires straight line movement. Its not like the wording of 'straight line' is completely missing, in that case you can maybe assume that the designers hadn't thought of it.

Whether its silly or cartoonish to jump sideways is not so relevant. Is it silly that you can survive a 300ft fall? Its quite silly to me, and the surface of the fall doesn't even matter when it should. But is the DM right to make ad hoc house rules based on physics and real world logic? The DM has every right to do that, but he could also rule that your Sneak Attack doesn't work because you are not sneaking, and he wouldn't be wrong whether he uses the rules, common sense or any logic. I'm using an extreme example here, but you get the point.

My table has laughed and poked fun at some of the silly things in the rules, but jumping sideways is suddenly too silly? Give me a break. We are playing a goddamn game where everything is made up.

Why does everyone assume i'm still salty about the whole incident? I have moved on from it, but i just feel like sharing, is all. Like i said, i feel happier for quitting, and i wasn't getting much enjoyment from the games.

[Jerrykhor]

I'd say the character inspiration is much less important than the tone of the table. If everybody wants to play a Wuxia game with Looney Tunes physics, that could be a lot of fun. But if you are at a table that is operating on a more realistic set of rules, you need to respect that as a player, regardless of your character's inspirations.
I don't think i have ever ask for a DM to bend the rules due to my character's fluff. If i am in doubt of something whether my character could do or not, the first thing i do is to look up the rules. Because my previous DM would ask me 'what does the rules say?' If the rules is clear that i can't, i simply accept that i can't.


Again, I think RAW is imprecisely worded enough that you are technically correct. And as primarily a martial plauer, I can sumpathize with the irritation with DM's that build "interesting terrain" that massively hinders the martials (but not, of course, the casters). But let's play reductio ad absurdium with this argument: you are in a hallway 1" wider than your character. Could you use the available space to bounce back and forth between the walls 120 times, and then double your jump distance? A genuinely literal reading of RAW would allow this, but it's such an absurd proposition that I can't imagine a DM who would say yes to it.
Alas, i would never ask for something that ridiculous. I don't read rules like a robot, but seems like I am alone in thinking that a turning jump doesn't break my versimilitude. I can understand if the DM doesn't allow something because it might be repeated in the future (such as class abilities or spells), but how often am i going to do this 90 degree jump again? Probably never. I'm also not doing this to gain an advantage, I'm doing this because the next option was to do nothing. If i remember correctly, i didn't have a ranged weapon on me, and we were level 2.

What's the point of an interesting terrain if you don't allow interesting solutions? His ruling just made me think that he didn't expect anyone to try to jump across the branches. I remember most of the branches were too far for standing jumps.

But the funniest part during the arguments was the DM said, 'Why didn't you just ask me for an Athletics check?' (His ruling was a flat NO during the session). That was the point i knew i didn't want to play with him anymore.

[rel]

RAW just says you have to move immediately before executing the jump (no attacks, bonus actions, or other nonsense between the movement and the jump), it doesn't specify anything about direction.
OP's reading seems to be the correct one to me.

Adding a directional component would be a house rule, although an admittedly reasonable one.

I like the suggestion to delete the reference to a running start, and simply make all jumps cover strength in feet.

I also recommend codifying how much extra distance an athletics check gives you, if rulings on jump distance are causing arguments at the table.

[Unoriginal]

My point is that the omission of the wording 'moving in a straight-line' allows me to do so.

Perhaps, but that is a whole different argument than "this is RAW".

RAW is Rules as Written.

What is *not* written is not RAW, cannot be RAW, will never be RAW.

"The text doesn't state X, therefore it defaults to Y" can be a reasonable argument. But it is not RAW.



Why does everyone assume i'm still salty about the whole incident?

Because... you literally told us thinking about it still made you angry?

[Keravath]

I think that folks may be missing an aspect of RAW.

The rules specifically use the terms "standing long jump" and "long jump" when describing jumping. These are specific terms for sports activities used in the English language (Long jump and standing long jump are olympic competition sports). A long jump IS a jump preceded by a run with the jump following more or less in the direction of the movement. A standing long jump IS a jump from a standing start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_jump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_long_jump

The rules don't just say: "Jump: move 10 feet, jump up to your strength score (direction undefined) OR jump half that distance if you don't move."

The "physics" and interpretation of what a "long jump" and "standing long jump" ARE, is defined by their common usage. Arguing that the rules allow a jump in any direction after a move of 10' IGNORES the usage of the specific term "long jump" in RAW.

Basically, I think RAW is pretty clear, it is specifically describing the rules for a long jump and and a standing long jump and what THESE are and how they work is defined by common usage outside the rules themselves (since the rules obviously can't be expected to define what every single term means).

Stating that a long jump lets you jump in any direction after moving 10' is ignoring what the term "long jump" specifically means and implies about the action itself. One could argue that perhaps "long jump" wasn't being used as a specific term EXCEPT that the rules also use the specific term "standing long jump" rather than "short jump" or some other descriptive term.

Bottom line for me is that both RAW and RAI, the DM was correct in their interpretation.

"Jumping

Your Strength determines how far you can jump.

Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement."

[Jerrykhor]

So, long story short, you are technically correct to say to your DM that the RAW doesn't say you can't. And your DM is technically correct to rule that this is silly nonsense because the whole point of movement before a jump is to build momentum in the direction you want to go, and to let that momentum carry you further than you would otherwise jump, and turning 90 degrees to jump robs you of 100% of that momentum.
It's a very common sense ruling, and you had such a problem with applying basic common sense to the situation that you quit the group and took your complaint to multiple different places, even as far out as a year later. You insist that you weren't trying to powergame the system for your benefit, but with a presentation like this, how are we supposed to conclude otherwise?

The problem with this argument is that momentum can be argued to be non-existent. If there were momentum, why does my attack do the same damage whether i stand still or move 100 ft? My attacks should do more damage if i jump at them from a high ground, because it 'makes sense'. Momentum and gravity exist, this is common sense.

But the game rules dont account for momentum. Except you know, the abilities that specifically require you to move in a straight line.

I am not arguing that the rules doesnt say i need legs to run therefore i can still run without legs. That would be disingenuous. I am saying the rule omitting the straight line requirement means i dont have to run or jump in a straight line. The omission does not make it unclear, its the way the rules are written in the whole book. Its an important distinction.

[JNAProductions]

The problem with this argument is that momentum can be argued to be non-existent. If there were momentum, why does my attack do the same damage whether i stand still or move 100 ft? My attacks should do more damage if i jump at them from a high ground, because it 'makes sense'. Momentum and gravity exist, this is common sense.

But the game rules dont account for momentum. Except you know, the abilities that specifically require you to move in a straight line.

I am not arguing that the rules doesnt say i need legs to run therefore i can still run without legs. That would be disingenuous. I am saying the rule omitting the straight line requirement means i dont have to run or jump in a straight line. The omission does not make it unclear, its the way the rules are written in the whole book. Its an important distinction.

If you jump from high ground, you're also attacking less precisely. It'd take some serious, dedicated training to make your attacks absorb momentum from movement without decreasing the quality of attacks in another way, sorta like a feat... Oh look, Charger.
From a gamist point of view, move speed doesn't tie into damage. Suddenly letting it makes for some really wonky scenarios.

[Gurgeh]

If your movement doesn't generate momentum that assists in your jump, why do the rules require you to move at all to get a (non-standing) long jump? I'm genuinely curious about how you square this circle.

The simplest explanation, of course, is that it was an oversight by the writers. You can't account for every edge case, and there's little to be gained by trying (especially when it comes to modelling real-world mechanics that pretty much every player will have at least passing familiarity with from lived experience). But hey, if that's true then you can't get mad at the DM for not letting you have your way so you've instead got to live in Air Bud land and assume that everyone who disagrees with you is trying to ruin your fun out of spite.

Funnily enough, the third edition rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm) specify that the run-up prior to a jump must be in a straight line, but don't specify that it has to be in the same direction as the jump. Would you also say that this lets you do cartoonish backward jumps and tell a DM who shut you down that they were wrong because there ain't no rule that says the run-up and the jump need to be aligned?

[Derges]

If your movement doesn't generate momentum that assists in your jump, why do the rules require you to move at all to get a (non-standing) long jump? I'm genuinely curious about how you square this circle.

I would square it by changing the momentum rather than saying it doesn't exist. A character sprinting and bracing on a stone, wall, pothole, or something to pivot can work in my imagination.


Would you also say that this lets you do cartoonish backward jumps and tell a DM who shut you down that they were wrong because there ain't no rule that says the run-up and the jump need to be aligned?

Equally in your second example, I've played video games that have a backstep to jump attack animation. I can live with it but if the DM wants to add house rules that's his right.

[Unoriginal]

I am saying the rule omitting the straight line requirement means i dont have to run or jump in a straight line. The omission does not make it unclear

The omission does not make it unclear, it makes it not RAW.


Jerrykhor, the one and only way for "you don't have to run or jump in a straight line when you do a long jump" to be Rules as Written would be to have said sentence (or a sentence saying the same thing) written in the rule books.

If it is not written in the rule books, it is not RAW. Period.


If you want to argue that because it is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, a long jump can turn at 90 degrees from the run's direction is allowed, then do so. But you can't say that's what the rules state. Because they don't state anything about it one way or another.

[Keravath]

The omission does not make it unclear, it makes it not RAW.


Jerrykhor, the one and only way for "you don't have to run or jump in a straight line when you do a long jump" to be Rules as Written would be to have said sentence (or a sentence saying the same thing) written in the rule books.

If it is not written in the rule books, it is not RAW. Period.


If you want to argue that because it is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, a long jump can turn at 90 degrees from the run's direction is allowed, then do so. But you can't say that's what the rules state. Because they don't state anything about it one way or another.

The rules do though. They use the specific terms "Long Jump" and "Standing Long Jump". A long jump is a run followed by a jump in more or less the same direction - that is what a "Long Jump" is since you can't run along and jump in whatever direction you like - it wouldn't be called a "Long Jump". All the rules do is say HOW FAR a character needs to run in a line before jumping and what distance they get to jump afterward.

Similarly, the rules for the Standing Long Jump inform a character how far they can jump without a running start.

Suggesting a character could jump in any direction they like after moving 10' is ignoring the definition of what a "Long Jump" - a specific track and field sport - actually is - the rules tell you how to resolve a "Long Jump" which is movement in a straight line followed by a jump in more or less the same direction. :)

[Derges]

The rules do though. They use the specific terms "Long Jump" and "Standing Long Jump". A long jump is a run followed by a jump in more or less the same direction

That's your definition not the one in the rulebook. The Merriam-Webster dictionary does not agree with you.



A track-and-field event in which a jump for distance is made usually from a running start


This isn't to say your definition is wrong just that you cannot assume that WoTC was using it.

[Keravath]

That's your definition not the one in the rulebook. The Merriam-Webster dictionary does not agree with you.

This isn't to say your definition is wrong just that you cannot assume that WoTC was using it.

Really depends on which dictionary or source you choose.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/long-jump

Cambridge dictionary: "a sports event in which a person runs up to a mark and then jumps as far forward as they can"

Which I actually find to be a more accurate description of a long jump than the source cited above.

The wiki article describes a "long jump" in far better detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_jump

Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/sports/long-jump

Are we really arguing about what a "long jump" actually is? Would you say that an event in the real world using the common English meaning and described as a "long jump" lets you jump the same distance in any direction after running forward?

Personally, I'd say no, and I can't imagine WotC was using anything except the commonly accepted concept of what a "long jump" is when they wrote the rules. You are correct that I don't KNOW what WotC meant by "long jump" but maybe we don't KNOW what they meant by "movement", "attack", "cast a spell" or any other words used in the rulebook since they didn't include a glossary defining every single word they used in the rules either.

Where do you choose to draw the line?

----

As far as I know, the 5e rules are generally written using English common usage. They are not written in legalese where the smallest term needs to be defined.

Does the generally accepted meaning of "long jump" allow for a jump in any direction after a run? If someone wrote a sentence mentioning a "long jump" or "running long jump" to an English speaker would the meaning of what a "long jump" is be clear to them?

Do the D&D rules need to define every term used in them? What is a "long jump", what is a "standing long jump", what is a "high jump", what does "running" mean, what does "walking" mean, what is the meaning of the word "movement"?

The bottom line (for me anyway) is that the meaning of "long jump" is sufficiently well described for a native English speaker that it's meaning within the rule book is also clear.

However, I am afraid that the definition you cited above, that a long jump is just a run followed by a jump is insufficient since running forward and jumping sideways isn't a long jump, running forward and jumping backwards isn't a long jump - neither of those are actually "long jumps" and yet both fit the definition cited. In that case, I'd suggest that the definition cited is deficient (unless all of the other sources cited above are incorrect).

------------------

Anyway, the bottom line it is a DM call. RAW does not actually state a direction for the jump after the run (other than through the implicit definition of "long jump" which is commonly interpreted to mean a jump in the same direction as the run).

This makes it entirely a DM call - the rules don't state explicitly in a straight line nor to they state in the direction of the run, or any other direction. The DM can use the commonly accepted meaning of "long jump" which is a jump forward in the direction of the run or the DM can choose to have "long jump" mean something else in their game and allow a jump in any direction.

However, stating that RAW says you can jump in any direction is false. RAW simply makes no statement about it except through the common understanding of the meaning of "long jump".

[Derges]

No, we're not arguing about what a long jump is. You're trying to find ways to add words into a plain reading of the rules.

Your definition there doesn't back your point it makes no mention of the run ups relation to the jump (just that the jump is forward of the mark). More evidence for my "the definition isn't clear on direction" point though.

RAW direction is not a concern and yes as everyone has said it's a perfectly reasonable ruling to say it must be in line. That doesn't make it RAW.

[Damon_Tor]

One thing that throws a monkey wrench into the "common sense" RAI ruling is a high jump. You also get a running start to get full height on a jump straight up into the air. Which throws so e doubt into the idea that the direction you run in has to be the same direction of your jump

[GooeyChewie]

One thing that throws a monkey wrench into the "common sense" RAI ruling is a high jump. You also get a running start to get full height on a jump straight up into the air. Which throws so e doubt into the idea that the direction you run in has to be the same direction of your jump

On the other hand, if direction doesn’t matter, why not “long jump” straight up? (Note: Don’t actually try that.)

[Unoriginal]

RAW direction is not a concern and yes as everyone has said it's a perfectly reasonable ruling to say it must be in line. That doesn't make it RAW.

RAW does not state if direction is a concern or isn't a concern.

Any statement on the question is a ruling.

[Keravath]

No, we're not arguing about what a long jump is. You're trying to find ways to add words into a plain reading of the rules.

Your definition there doesn't back your point it makes no mention of the run ups relation to the jump (just that the jump is forward of the mark). More evidence for my "the definition isn't clear on direction" point though.

RAW direction is not a concern and yes as everyone has said it's a perfectly reasonable ruling to say it must be in line. That doesn't make it RAW.

If you honestly believe that the rules allow a 10' run followed by a longer jump in any direction than that provided by a standing jump then by all means play it that way.

As I mentioned, if it is assumed that "long jump" has no particular meaning, then RAW provides no constraint on the direction. This doesn't mean any direction and also doesn't mean any specific direction. It simply means the rules don't mention direction leaving any decision on the direction required, if any, to be up to the DM.

Ruling a straight line or ruling any direction are both rulings and since RAW doesn't specify, both could be valid rulings.

Any consistency with how a long jump may or may not work in reality is entirely at the DMs discretion.

---------------

P.S. If a DM decides that a long jump allows a jump in any direction then they will have to resolve the conflict between the long jump and the high jump rules.

"Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump."

The Long Jump rules do not specify a direction - so UP is just as valid a choice as forward, left, right and backward. So, using that interpretation of the rule, a creature can jump up to their strength score straight up since it is "covering that number of feet" and Long Jump doesn't specify direction.

On the other hand, rules for a High Jump allow you to leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3+your strength modifier. High Jump also does not specify a direction. It could be up, left, right, forward or backward since the creature is "leaping into the air" in one case and "covering a number of feet" in the other (assuming "high jump" is equally as undefined in the rules as "long jump"). If the usual definitions of long jump and high jump are ignored then these two rules provide contradictory instructions on how to resolve a jump.

"High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump."

[Jerrykhor]

The omission does not make it unclear, it makes it not RAW.


Jerrykhor, the one and only way for "you don't have to run or jump in a straight line when you do a long jump" to be Rules as Written would be to have said sentence (or a sentence saying the same thing) written in the rule books.

If it is not written in the rule books, it is not RAW. Period.


If you want to argue that because it is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, a long jump can turn at 90 degrees from the run's direction is allowed, then do so. But you can't say that's what the rules state. Because they don't state anything about it one way or another.

Once again, they don't write rules that way. The rules also didnt mention about jumps at 45 degree angle, or any other angle. Does that mean you can't do it?

[schm0]

Yeah, I think I've come around to a slightly different position on this one.

The words "long jump" have had a meaning since they first appeared in 1853, according to Merriam Webster. You can look it up in multiple dictionaries. We all know what one is. We all know how it works. We all know what it means. I think the RAW presumes that you do, too. Which means no, you can not change direction before you leap. The 10 feet of movement and the leap itself must all be in the same direction, just like a long jump in real life works.

[Gurgeh]

Once again, they don't write rules that way. The rules also didnt mention about jumps at 45 degree angle, or any other angle. Does that mean you can't do it?
Ask your DM and see what they say. Ask if you can do a running long jump directly up into the sky while you're at it.

(if you want a serious response to the 45 degree example, I'd rule-of-thumb it with a DC 10-15 strength(athletics) to jump your strength in feet, half distance on a fail.)

I will ask again: if the ten feet of movement prior to jumping isn't there to generate momentum for the jump, what is it for? Why do the rules require it?

[Unoriginal]

Once again, they don't write rules that way.

We are in agreement on that point.



The rules also didnt mention about jumps at 45 degree angle, or any other angle. Does that mean you can't do it?

What is meant is intention. What is written is written, and what is not written is not written.

Again, I'm not arguing the validity of one reading or the other. But one can't say "it is the Rules as Written" unless the rule is actually written.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If I may make a suggestion: the RAW permit this, but you can make it more palatable in terms of verisimilitude by stunting it somehow. Perhaps you grab another branch to redirect your momentum and your jump is at least in part a swing around in a circle. Or you bounce off of another tree trunk to redirect your jump. Come up with something action-packed and exciting that makes your direction-shift "make sense," and then you're not pitting the RAW against verisimilitude.

This is how I would view it too. Try to make something cool out of the scene rather than a boring argument over the exact wording of the rules. The first image that came to my mind is doing the run up on a branch with a vertical-ish side branch coming out the top. That's what you jump off off at the end of the run up, and it makes sense because you have speed.

A situation like this is exactly why tabletop roleplaying is not dead in the age of computers, because computers can only blindly apply their rules, which is not the coolest option here.

But if you want to play by RAW only, sure, run five foot forward, five foot back and then jump forward again. Maybe change direction in the middle of the jump too. Do the rules say anything about that? Or maybe you could intentionally jump at one sixth of your regular movement speed, and stay in the air for a few turns.

I take it back: this argument isn't boring at all. Would the jump itself count as "moving on foot"? Because that would allow infinite air jumps. Who needs flying spells?

[Derges]

Yeah, I think I've come around to a slightly different position on this one.

The words "long jump" have had a meaning since they first appeared in 1853, according to Merriam Webster. You can look it up in multiple dictionaries. We all know what one is. We all know how it works. We all know what it means. I think the RAW presumes that you do, too. Which means no, you can not change direction before you leap. The 10 feet of movement and the leap itself must all be in the same direction, just like a long jump in real life works.

The definition I cited did not say that. the definition cited in rebuttal did not say that. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from. At best we have a she says he says situation which goes back to definitions are unclear.

So then as the plain text does not specify a direction that can be the only valid RAW answer.

[Derges]

If you honestly believe that the rules allow a 10' run followed by a longer jump in any direction than that provided by a standing jump then by all means play it that way.
No, I believe that RAW does not specify the direction of the run up which is the subject. I have stated repeatedly that requiring a direction is a fine ruling.



P.S. If a DM decides that a long jump allows a jump in any direction then they will have to resolve the conflict between the long jump and the high jump rules.

"Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump."

The Long Jump rules do not specify a direction - so UP is just as valid a choice as forward, left, right and backward. So, using that interpretation of the rule, a creature can jump up to their strength score straight up since it is "covering that number of feet" and Long Jump doesn't specify direction.

On the other hand, rules for a High Jump allow you to leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3+your strength modifier. High Jump also does not specify a direction. It could be up, left, right, forward or backward since the creature is "leaping into the air" in one case and "covering a number of feet" in the other (assuming "high jump" is equally as undefined in the rules as "long jump"). If the usual definitions of long jump and high jump are ignored then these two rules provide contradictory instructions on how to resolve a jump.

"High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump."

Does anyone disagree about whether a long jump means a jump forward or a high jump means a jump up? Yes, if you fully redefine the terms to mean anything you can create silly scenarios.

The bit of the definition that we disagree on is your addition of the requirement that a run has to be directly in line with such a jump and cannot be done similarly to a real-life high jump (where a 90-degree pivot is common.

[RazorChain]

RAW, you can run 5' back, 5' forward, and count as a running start.

How I would rule it is that if you're still in your front arc, you can count as a running start. If you're doing a turn greater than 90 degrees, either no or require a check.


Even better if he's stuck on a branch he could inch forward and backward any number of times before jumping to reach the ten foot "running start"

RAW is fun....and the reason why my rogue always carries a shrubbery with him....as stated in the rules "As long as they’re not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter"

[Segev]

I will reiterate that you can describe your in-world action in a way that justifies the RAW being applied.

For example, run forward those ten feet and grab a branch or vine as you jump to turn ninth degrees by swinging around on it.

Or you could run and jump at a tree trunk and bounce off it at the ninty or more degree angle to get where you want to go.

Use your environment to make your technically-RAW-legal action visually exciting and awesome, and objections to it 'making sense' evaporate not only because of rule of cool, but also because part of making it awesome is making it make visual and narrative sense.