PDA

View Full Version : What would you classify gravity as?

krossbow
2010-03-19, 05:31 PM
If a person used a spell to increase the gravity in an area (for example, to slam their foes to the ground and render them helpless), would you classify this as evocation or Transmutation?

Is gravity evocable as a form of energy, or would it be that the wizard is transmuting the area to have a much higher gravitational field than normal?

Grumman
2010-03-19, 05:34 PM
Transmutation, see Reverse Gravity or Undeniable Gravity.

RelentlessImp
2010-03-19, 05:34 PM
If a person used a spell to increase the gravity in an area (for example, to slam their foes to the ground and render them helpless), would you classify this as evocation or Transmutation?

Is gravity evocable as a form of energy, or would it be that the wizard is transmuting the area to have a much higher gravitational field than normal?

Transmutation, because you're altering (IE, transmuting) the properties of an area.

Human Paragon 3
2010-03-19, 05:35 PM
Magically speaking, I would call it Trans. since it changes the properties of something (in this case, the area you wish to effect).

Gravity is not a type of energy, it is an intrinsic force.

boomwolf
2010-03-19, 05:36 PM
I don't think it belong to either. gravity is not energy, it is a force that pulls objects to each other depending on their mass.

Gravity in DnD is non-existent in the form we know it, its just the direction of "down", with a constant pull.

So technically its a law of reality, and I have no clue what kind of magic changes that.

krossbow
2010-03-19, 05:37 PM
Magically speaking, I would call it Trans. since it changes the properties of something (in this case, the area you wish to effect).

Gravity is not a type of energy, it is an intrinsic force.

Well yes, but in RL neither is cold (D&D fails thermodynamics so hard :smalltongue:).

Anyways, thanks for the references to gravity spells for the explanation; cements it.

Amphetryon
2010-03-19, 05:38 PM
I don't think it belong to either. gravity is not energy, it is a force that pulls objects to each other depending on their mass.

Gravity in DnD is non-existent in the form we know it, its just the direction of "down", with a constant pull.

So technically its a law of reality, and I have no clue what kind of magic changes that.There's a Reverse Gravity spell that would like to argue this point.

Volkov
2010-03-19, 05:56 PM
Gravity in D&D pulls you at the speed of the plot, not at the speed it's mass would determine. That is what separates RL Gravity from D&D Gravity.

JonestheSpy
2010-03-19, 06:01 PM
If cold and acid can be "energy", I don't see why gravity can't.

Now I want to see a gravity-breathing dragon...

Myou
2010-03-19, 06:02 PM
If cold and acid can be "energy", I don't see why gravity can't.

Now I want to see a gravity-breathing dragon...

That's just awesome. :smalltongue:

Eldonauran
2010-03-19, 06:43 PM
If cold and acid can be "energy", I don't see why gravity can't.

Now I want to see a gravity-breathing dragon...

I second this. :smallamused:

krossbow
2010-03-19, 06:47 PM
Now, would it breathe black holes at people, or would it have a black hole that it sucks people into in its mouth? :smallconfused:

And if you killed it, would it implode?

Volkov
2010-03-19, 06:48 PM
Now, would it breathe black holes at people, or would it have a black hole that it sucks people into in its mouth? :smallconfused:

And if you killed it, would it implode?

The black hole consumes its body and then devours your entire home world, you can only get a reflex saving throw as a readied action to teleport away. Everyone else is dead, no saving throws of any kind.

krossbow
2010-03-19, 06:51 PM
The black hole consumes its body and then devours your entire home world, you can only get a reflex saving throw as a readied action to teleport away. Everyone else is dead, no saving throws of any kind.

Somehow, i KNOW that this is all Gordan Freeman's fault.

Mastikator
2010-03-19, 06:52 PM
Speaking of gravity-breathing dragons...

Don't electromagnetic discharges create a powerful (yet very shortlived) magnetic field? Would this make blue dragons electromagnetic-breathing dragons, that should affect anyone wearing a plate mail.

cfalcon
2010-03-19, 07:01 PM
Gravity is a force just like in real life. Our current understanding implies transmutation.

Lighting is an electromagnetic discharge, certainly. The massive pulse of current definitely creates a magnetic field, briefly- no reason to assume it doesn't work like real lightning. Why this would be any more effective against someone in plate I'm not seeing though.

Mastikator
2010-03-19, 07:04 PM
I'm saying lightning might to more than "merely" burn damage to anyone wearing plate armor, specifically the wearer of the metal to be tossed aside.

Grumman
2010-03-19, 07:04 PM
Don't electromagnetic discharges create a powerful (yet very shortlived) magnetic field? Would this make blue dragons electromagnetic-breathing dragons, that should affect anyone wearing a plate mail.
No. It would create the magnetic field, but it's not going to be powerful enough to move 200+ pounds of armoured soldier.

absolmorph
2010-03-19, 07:09 PM
Gravity in D&D pulls you at the speed of the plot, not at the speed it's mass would determine. That is what separates RL Gravity from D&D Gravity.
In DnD, everything travels at the speed of plot.

Volkov
2010-03-19, 07:10 PM
In DnD, everything travels at the speed of plot.

Except bad news, which obeys it's own laws.

ZeroNumerous
2010-03-19, 07:14 PM
Except bad news, which obeys it's own laws.

Volkov
2010-03-19, 07:15 PM

So I take it you never read any of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy books. Very few people ever seem to get any references I make to them. I thought that one was blatantly obvious enough for everyone to catch on....

cfalcon
2010-03-19, 07:22 PM
I'm saying lightning might to more than "merely" burn damage to anyone wearing plate armor, specifically the wearer of the metal to be tossed aside.

Oh, no, this wouldn't happen. First, the field would follow a right hand rule with the thumb pointing either out of or towards the dragon's mouth, with the fingers showing the direction of the force- so it wouldn't even pull in a uniform direction if it actually struck someone. Second, the total amount of work that could be done by the lightning would be low. Third, if you look at actual lightning strikes, you generally don't see stuff blown in circles, even if it's metallic, if the lightning merely strikes nearby.

I'm probably missing some other good reasons, but overall, I wouldn't sweat it. The magnetic effects of lightning on something big, like a person, are ignorable.

The Big Dice
2010-03-19, 11:03 PM
So I take it you never read any of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy books. Very few people ever seem to get any references I make to them. I thought that one was blatantly obvious enough for everyone to catch on....

Anything that happens, happens.

Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen.

Anything that in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again.

It doesn't necessarily do it in chronological order, though.

As for gravity in D&D, it's what causes falling damage and stops everything from being able to fly without some kind of effect that lets you fly.

Knaight
2010-03-19, 11:27 PM
Gravity is not a type of energy, it is an intrinsic force.

Probably best not to bring these in. A reverse strong nuclear force spell is the inevitable ending. And unlike the fun you could have with electromagnetism, it can't end well.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-19, 11:41 PM
1. Black holes can exist in D&D, but they're extremely bad news, devouring the entire Material Plane in minutes despite that plane's infinite size. (Elder Evils; created by moving a Sphere of Annihilation into a Well of Many Worlds.)

2. Reversing electromagnetism would not be fun, it would cause all atoms in the affected area to explode violently. It would then cause all nuclei in the area to clump together into a blob of nuclear matter, and all the electrons to clump into electronium. Not Good.

2010-03-20, 01:57 AM
2. Reversing electromagnetism would not be fun, it would cause all atoms in the affected area to explode violently. It would then cause all nuclei in the area to clump together into a blob of nuclear matter, and all the electrons to clump into electronium. Not Good.

Not really. I mean, stuff on the edges of the area would have funky interactions with stuff outside the area, but aside from some edge case weirdness you'd just end up with your magnetic fields following a left-hand rule.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-20, 02:03 AM
Technically, IRL, gravity isn't a force. It's the natural tendency for mass to attract mass. At least, according to the most current theory of general relativity.

Reluctance
2010-03-20, 02:10 AM
This reminds me of when Transmutation was the god school because any effect could be considered changing something in some way. Also, in what school would you put a spell that protects you with magical force for hours on end?

2010-03-20, 02:12 AM
So technically its a law of reality, and I have no clue what kind of magic changes that.

All of it. That's kind of the definition of magic.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-20, 02:22 AM
This reminds me of when Transmutation was the god school because any effect could be considered changing something in some way. Also, in what school would you put a spell that protects you with magical force for hours on end?

Depends on the force. If you're altering the energy present in all things to be a force, then transmutation. If you're creating a forcelike shell, then conjuration or abjuration. If you're creating energies, then evocation.

Schools are pretty mutable.

ClockShock
2010-03-20, 02:35 AM
If cold and acid can be "energy", I don't see why gravity can't.

Now I want to see a gravity-breathing dragon...

http://www.finalfantasytr.com/ff8/diablos.jpg

krossbow
2010-03-20, 03:14 AM

http://www.finalfantasytr.com/ff8/diablos.jpg

That sir is a demon.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-20, 03:25 AM
Technically, IRL, gravity isn't a force. It's the natural tendency for mass to attract mass. At least, according to the most current theory of general relativity.

Still wrong. It's not an attraction at all, it's merely the curvature of spacetime in such a way that paths are curved toward massive objects.

Not really. I mean, stuff on the edges of the area would have funky interactions with stuff outside the area, but aside from some edge case weirdness you'd just end up with your magnetic fields following a left-hand rule.

Wrong. Reverse electromagnetism's sign and electrons repel protons.

Therefore, Reality Bomb.

jseah
2010-03-20, 06:16 AM
magic9mushroom:

I'm sure the mad linguist thought you meant reversing the charges. Not the fundamental negative sign on the equation.

Although turning electric fields from "Opposites Attract" to "Like Attracts Like" is a bit... drastic.

And yes, nothing good happens. Since magnetic fields are a relativistic extension of electric fields, I've no idea what'll happen to them apart from that something fundamental in magnetic fields changes as well.
(IIRC, magnetic fields will now go in straight lines and you get magnetic monopoles, don't quote me on this, just pure speculation)

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-20, 06:26 AM
Still wrong. It's not an attraction at all, it's merely the curvature of spacetime in such a way that paths are curved toward massive objects.
That would be the mechanics behind the theory of WHY objects attract one another in an amount that increases with mass, and decreases with distance.

But the statement was correct. Objects attract one another based on mass and distance. The reasoning behind that is a proposed curvature of space/time around objects that increases with mass.

The reason behind the attraction wasn't given, but such objects DO attract one another. If you were trying to clarify my statement, you'd be fine. But calling it wrong is like telling someone they're wrong when they refer to an orange as "fruit", and telling them that it's actually an orange.

It's not specific, but it isn't false.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-20, 06:29 AM
That would be the mechanics behind the theory of WHY objects attract one another in an amount that increases with mass, and decreases with distance.

But the statement was correct. Objects attract one another based on mass and distance. The reasoning behind that is a proposed curvature of space/time around objects that increases with mass.

The reason behind the attraction wasn't given, but such objects DO attract one another. If you were trying to clarify my statement, you'd be fine. But calling it wrong is like telling someone they're wrong when they refer to an orange as "fruit", and telling them that it's actually an orange.

It's not specific, but it isn't false.

No. Gravity is not a real force, therefore the term "attract" is incorrect.

Gravity is a fictitious force.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-20, 06:33 AM
No. Gravity is not a real force, therefore the term "attract" is incorrect.

Gravity is a fictitious force.

Correct. It's a fundamental principle (also called a fundamental force; oddly enough, under relativity, it doesn't qualify as a force, unlike the other fundamental forces. Gravity unfortunately is the only one of the four that doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics.). However, that does not invalidate attraction. It doesn't exert force upon other objects, but it DOES attract.

Source:
Gravitation, or gravity, is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with strong interaction, electromagnetic force and weak interaction. It is the means by which objects with mass attract one another.

The reference for this (which refers to gravitational interaction as attraction) is authored by Professor Steve Carlip, who referenced Hawkings in his support. That places it as a credible source, by an accredited physicist.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-20, 06:48 AM
Correct. It's a fundamental principle (also called a fundamental force; oddly enough, under relativity, it doesn't qualify as a force, unlike the other fundamental forces. Gravity unfortunately is the only one of the four that doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics.). However, that does not invalidate attraction. It doesn't exert force upon other objects, but it DOES attract.

Depends very much on your definition. From the point of view of any particular object, it travels in a straight line.

Source:

The reference for this (which refers to gravitational interaction as attraction) is authored by Professor Steve Carlip, who referenced Hawkings in his support. That places it as a credible source, by an accredited physicist.

Did you read the reference? "Attraction" is mentioned exactly once in that article, and it's an article that involves converting general relativity into Newtonian equations anyway.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-20, 07:02 AM
Depends very much on your definition. From the point of view of any particular object, it travels in a straight line.

Did you read the reference? "Attraction" is mentioned exactly once in that article, and it's an article that involves converting general relativity into Newtonian equations anyway.

Yes, but it does set a benchmark for describing gravity and electromagnetic force as attraction. It also uses attraction in reference to gravitics. That's rather difficult to dispute.

I find it distasteful when some random internet person sees accredited text contradicting his/her point, and starts arguing in the face of qualified expert evidence.

If you'd prefer more sources: Here's one (http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys01/unigrav/default.htm).
And another (http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/education/activities/pdf/Attraction_of_Objects.pdf).
A third (http://www.christa.org/gravity.htm). (incidentally, direct references here, and he's a Science and Tech specialist at the Challenger Research Center, and author of a book or two on celestial objects).

There are a lot more, and I could go on. Suffice it to say that gravity and electromagnetics both attract. To state that's flat out wrong would be to state there is no way for that to be true.

"Depends on your definition" indicates there are some where it IS accurate. I prefer, as this is a physics discussion, to use a physics definition:

Physics Definition of Attraction (http://dictionary.babylon.com/attraction/)

1. (physics) an invisible power in a body by which it draws anything to itself; the power in nature acting mutually between bodies or ultimate particles, tending to draw them together, or to produce their cohesion or combination, and conversely resisting separation.
note: attraction is exerted at both sensible and insensible distances, and is variously denominated according to its qualities or phenomena. under attraction at sensible distances, there are, -- (1.) attraction of gravitation, which acts at all distances throughout the universe, with a force proportional directly to the product of the masses of the bodies and inversely to the square of their distances apart.

Or, if you prefer Webster's Physics definition:
(n.) An invisible power in a body by which it draws anything to itself; the power in nature acting mutually between bodies or ultimate particles, tending to draw them together, or to produce their cohesion or combination, and conversely resisting separation.

So, would you like to tell me again, with no sources, citations, or evidence of any kind, that I'm incorrect? That gravity doesn't attract things, when there's sources all over the place that I've now cited that show it does? Because I never get tired of hearing that kinda stuff. Makes me chuckle every time.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-20, 09:16 AM
You're as much a "random internet person" to me as I am to you, y'know. :smallwink:

Also, both definitions you cited are Newtonian.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-20, 11:21 AM
You're as much a "random internet person" to me as I am to you, y'know. :smallwink:Ah, but you see, the sources I've cited aren't. Therein lies the difference. It's easy to let off a couple snarky comments with no evidence, call someone wrong, and walk away from the laptop. People do that all the time. It's a bit harder showing one scrap of credible evidence proving what you say.

Which you haven't.

Also, both definitions you cited are Newtonian.
So? The only appreciable difference is a bit of difference in the nuts and bolts of the high-end side of the equations. Unless you're trying to account for a bit of variation in the orbit of Mercury, they're just as accurate.

In fact, for the vast majority of calculations, the Newtonian method is still used, because it's much less involved, and the results are very, very close.

A half dozen PHd's disagree with your opinion.

So I, as a "random internet person", have a decision to make.

Trust the opinion I set forth, corroborated by a small army of doctorates and an expert-supported and cited online encyclopedia...

Or trust one guy, with no evidence to back him up, that lets of a couple snarky comments, and, as yet, has provided absolutely nothing credible to back up his own personal dissenting view.

DJDizzy
2010-03-20, 04:21 PM
And, wikipedia is the knower of all things on the internet, as we all know.

Fendalus
2010-03-20, 05:26 PM
And, wikipedia is the knower of all things on the internet, as we all know.

When it is Cited to a reliable source, yes, it is. It's science articles tend to be fairly accurate, it's other ones, not so much. Still, best use of it is as a collection of sources.

On topic, I'd classify a spell that effects gravity as a transmutation spell.

krossbow
2010-03-20, 06:16 PM
y'know, this conversation, and the issues with cold, make me wonder. Should we even assume Dungeons and dragons worlds operate with normal physics and other science?

do things like nuclear reactions, laws of motion (we know thermodynamics doesn't apply), gravity, ect. Even work?

Darth Stabber
2010-03-20, 06:16 PM

reverse strong and weak force, bad guys aspload on a sub atomic level

Soonerdj
2010-03-20, 06:25 PM
reverse strong and weak force, bad guys aspload on a sub atomic level

Welcome to Disintegrate :D, Either way I would classify gravity differently depending on the world. Is it a globe, a ring, or a plane?

Flickerdart
2010-03-20, 06:27 PM
y'know, this conversation, and the issues with cold, make me wonder. Should we even assume Dungeons and dragons worlds operate with normal physics and other science?

do things like nuclear reactions, laws of motion (we know thermodynamics doesn't apply), gravity, ect. Even work?
I believe it's stated somewhere that Greyhawk's Material Plane has physics identical to real life's. Not sure about Eberron, Dark Sun or Forgotten Realms. In Ravenloft, Murphy's Law is physics.

Noedig
2010-03-20, 07:30 PM
As to gravity breathing baddies, theres a roguelike game called Mangband that has the nasty little buggers called gravity hounds. When they breath gravity at you it causes a slow effect and also causes you to become heavily encumbered.
Normally this is not a problem as by the point at which you encounter them, you are fast enough to deal with a 3 or 4 hounds, but these things run in packs of 20-40.
Not fun when you have 9 hounds full attacking your ass and the other 31 piling on slow and encumbrance.

Knaight
2010-03-20, 09:02 PM