PDA

View Full Version : Continual Flame Exploit



Lysander
2010-07-22, 03:42 PM
Here's an expensive trick you could use continual flame for. Cast the spell on several tiny glass beads. Each one is now covered in fire as bright as a torch. Now glue all of these beads together into a ball shape with sovereign glue and attach it to a torch handle.

You now have a torch that emits several times the light of a normal torch. Theoretically you could use it to emit as much light as a daylight spell, or even much more. With enough beads it should be bright enough to prevent even creatures not particularly sensitive to light from seeing. There's no limit to how bright it can get, other than how much ruby dust you can afford.

This technique could be used to create spotlights if you instead place the ball within a polished metal cone, or just to create a very bright torch.

Lyndworm
2010-07-22, 03:46 PM
Allow me to channel Morbo for a second, won't you?

"TORCHES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

Each bead casts light like a torch, but they all share the same space. This doesn't create a brighter light, it only creates two lights that share the same space.

Regardless of real-world physics, D&D light sources simply do not stack like that.

Edge of Dreams
2010-07-22, 03:47 PM
Sounds similar to some stuff I've heard before. Apparently some 1e/2e DM's would let players blind an enemy by casting 'Light' on the enemy's eyes.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-22, 03:51 PM
Sounds similar to some stuff I've heard before. Apparently some 1e/2e DM's would let players blind an enemy by casting 'Light' on the enemy's eyes.

Let? If I recall correctly, it was actually in the rules for the spell.

Lysander
2010-07-22, 03:55 PM
Allow me to channel Morbo for a second, won't you?

"TORCHES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

Each bead casts light like a torch, but they all share the same space. This doesn't create a brighter light, it only creates two lights that share the same space.

Regardless of real-world physics, D&D light sources simply do not stack like that.

D&D might ignore real world physics, true. But in real life if you multiply the number of lights the room does get bright. Ten candles provides ten times as much light as one candle.

And the beads aren't actually in the same space. They're just close together.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-22, 04:02 PM
D&D might ignore real world physics, true. But in real life if you multiply the number of lights the room does get bright. Ten candles provides ten times as much light as one candle.

And the beads aren't actually in the same space. They're just close together.

They're in the same 5ft. square - in D&D terminology, the 'same space'. For all intent and purposes of the rules, they are each radiating the same amount of light that overlaps entirely for no increased radiance.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 04:37 PM
D&D might ignore real world physics, true. But in real life if you multiply the number of lights the room does get bright. Ten candles provides ten times as much light as one candle.

And the beads aren't actually in the same space. They're just close together.
Light still doesn't work that way.

You get more light output but not more intense light.

The reason why putting more candles in the room makes it "brighter" is because everything is closer to some light soure - and brightness is subject to the inverse square law.

So unless you have a way to concentrate the light (e.g. lenses or mirrors) you'd be better off tying those beads onto rats, placing those rats in a sack, and then scattering them whenever you walk into a room :smallamused:

Enguhl
2010-07-22, 05:50 PM
What you could do is build a little reflective dome for each one, that way you get basically a bulls eye lantern in all directions.

*That* I would allow as DM.

jiriku
2010-07-22, 05:55 PM
Anyone who's ever put another log on the fire grasps that when you have more stuff burning, you get more light. More continual flames does in fact equal more light...common sense should tell us this. The fact that there's no rule describing it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen -- for there's also no rule forbidding it. The lack of rules coverage simply means that this situation falls into the realm of DM adjudication.

The DM does get to make off-the-cuff rulings from time to time, y'know.

Arbitrarity
2010-07-22, 06:05 PM
And, what does it do? It can't expand the radius of light, make it go from bright to dim, and CERTAINLY not emulate Daylight, according to the rules.

Also, vision deals with light as a log scale. Getting noticeably brighter requires exponentially more beads.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-07-22, 06:50 PM
Continual Flame is an Evocation [Light] effect, so it counteracts and overpowers [Darkness] effects of equal or lower level. The cost of an Everburning Torch is the standard NPC spellcasting fee for a caster level 3 Continual Flame plus the material component. If you Heighten a light effect it overpowers any darkness effect of lower level. For example, you could pay (9x17x10)+50=1580 gp for an Everburning Torch that's been Heightened to 9th level, and it will overpower and suppress the effect of any darkness spell of 8th level or lower within its area.

balistafreak
2010-07-22, 07:12 PM
That seems like an extremely cheap and awesome way to say "no" to darkness effects, but are there any high-level ones that you actually care about?

(So you could maybe purchase one at a lower cost, because I'm cheap like that. :smalltongue:)

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-22, 09:19 PM
Slap that onto a dull grey stone for hands free nearly undespellable light. That could actualy prove very nice if you go into the dark alot and your DM likes to put out/dispell your lights.

Jack_Simth
2010-07-22, 09:26 PM
Oh, so this *isn't* about how to abuse a Called (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#calling) (not Summoned (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)) Lantern Archon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#lanternArchon) for a LOT of wealth?

Kylarra
2010-07-22, 09:29 PM
D&D+"physics"= catgirl death

The Glyphstone
2010-07-22, 09:32 PM
In this case, I think they're burning to death. Continual Flame is heatless, so the heat it would generate has to go somewhere. With all those continual flames in one place, the residual heat non-buildup is enough to cause fur to combust.

Kylarra
2010-07-22, 09:33 PM
In this case, I think they're burning to death. Continual Flame is heatless, so the heat it would generate has to go somewhere. With all those continual flames in one place, the residual heat non-buildup is enough to cause fur to combust.Death by entropy.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-22, 10:01 PM
Slap that onto a dull grey stone for hands free nearly undespellable light.
If you're talking about an Ioun Stone, that seems like a spectacularly bad idea. Think about it. Those things circle your head. So if you light one up the light is either in your eyes, providing glare ( the time) or casting a shadow of your head where you want to look (the other ).

Ormur
2010-07-22, 11:32 PM
Actually there are rules in D&D (3.0) that could be used as a baseline for "stacking" light sources. There are candelabras in the Arms and Equipment guide that hold from four to sixteen candles, that usually illuminate only in a 5 ft. radius, but illuminate a radius from 10 to 20 ft. Presumably that is shadowy like candles, but the precedent for illumination in the Player's Handbook seems to be that bright illumination always reaches out to half the distance of shadowy illumination. So a candelabra that holds four candles should illuminate the first 5 ft. brightly.

There is no difference specified between the bright light emitted from torches for 20 ft and that from the daylight spell for 60 ft.

If we presume that stacking torches works in the same way as stacking candles in candelabras in the A&EG we're still left with a DM call. Do four torches in a candelabra and every doubling after that increase the range of the illumination by the initial radius of the light source or only by 5 ft increments (the ambiguity rises from candles only having a 5 ft radius and that being such a common increment in D&D rules).

If the more generous former interpretation is used, four torches in the same space would provide shadowy illumination out to 80 ft. and bright out to 40 ft and only eight would be required to illuminate like the Daylight spell. That would cost 800 gp plus casting for continuous daylight (880 gp hired). Sixteen would exceed that and provide bright illumination for 80 ft.

On the other hand if the less generous interpretation of each doubling of four only adding another 5 ft. is used then you'd require sixteen doublings to get the equivalent of a daylight spell or a total of 262.144 torches occupying the same space. That would cost 26.214.400 gp in material components and might even stretch the limits of the 5 ft. square.

Stompy
2010-07-23, 12:40 AM
Oh, so this *isn't* about how to abuse a Called (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#calling) (not Summoned (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)) Lantern Archon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#lanternArchon) for a LOT of wealth?

I was thinking the exact same thing. (Most of the DMs I run with don't pay attention to light radius.)

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-23, 01:08 AM
This was discussed recently (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158784), as it happens.


You get more light output but not more intense light.
But... with the light output concentrated into one area, how could it not be more intense? That's, like, what intense means. Lots, all together!


So unless you have a way to concentrate the light
Like, say... by putting the light sources next to each other?

panaikhan
2010-07-23, 02:27 AM
How about making the beads from metal, gluing them to a metal mace and inventing the 'Flaming Disco Ball of Doom' ?

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-23, 03:47 AM
Try lighting a large room with a candle. The add another candle right next to it. Does the amount of area the candle light up double? No. If you want to light a room with candles, you use a lot of candles spaced out.

Fire-light does't stack that way. A bigger fire (or more candles concentrated) casts more light, yes, but it's certainly a) not a doubling factor, it's a diminishing returns thing (probably based on volume or surface area I'd guess off the top of my head) b) not necessaarily in big increase in range or area lit, juts how bright the lit area is and c) not at a level where you can manage daylight anyway. Think about it. Does a bonfire, even a really, really huge one, emit enough light to be compared to daylight? No. Not even a forest fire emits that amount of light. Fire just does not work that way.

For a kick-off, fire doesn't emit light in the full spectrum anyway (it's, y'know, famously red-orange) so no matter how much fire you pile on, you won't get daylight, even if you burn the countryside. You need to start burning stuff like a star does to get that.


Now, you might argre (with your DM) that with some research and effort, you might be able to make a permenant Light spell function like an LED, I guess; or make Continual Flame act like Continual Light in AD&D, but otherwise the illusion of fire is going to emit light like fire. And in that case, no matter how much you stack, it's not going to be daylight.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-23, 09:07 AM
But... with the light output concentrated into one area, how could it not be more intense? That's, like, what intense means. Lots, all together!
Putting a bunch of light into one place doesn't suddenly produce sunlight like the OP suggests - you will never get sunburn or struck blind by a wood-burning fire of any size.


Like, say... by putting the light sources next to each other?
No, by concentrating the gross photons either through a lens or by a mirror - like I said.

Putting more torches in a small area will increase the frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency) of the emmitance of light, but not the intensity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)) of the light.

Lysander
2010-07-23, 11:20 AM
It's pretty obvious that more light sources (of the same strength) equals more light. If you don't believe me just turn off the overhead lights, take two flashlights, and see whether things look brighter when you shine one or both on them.

And I'm not saying a daylight effect would happen easily. It would probably take a huge amount of continual flame spells. And of course the color would be different. But wood burning fires can become bright enough to be dazzling, it just takes something of industrial strength like a kiln.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-23, 11:35 AM
Try lighting a large room with a candle. The add another candle right next to it. Does the amount of area the candle light up double? No.
That's because our senses aren't linear. It takes quite a bit more light before we perceive a doubling of brightness. A 23 watt compact fluorescent lamp emits about 15001600 lumens, and a lumen is 1 candela∙steradian. Thus a candle (1 candela, by definition) which shines in all directions produces 4π lumens. Which is to say that it takes 100 or so candles to produce comfortable reading illumination.

Bagelz
2010-07-23, 11:54 AM
I think the questions and answers are not specific enough.
you are increasing the Radiant Emittance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux) (amount of light from a source) and some of you are discussing the brightness near the center(radiant exitance), some are talking about the distance the light travels, and some are talking about the brightness on a surface (irradiance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance)) some distance away from the source.

so anyhow, both the brightness on a surface, and the distance light travels are inversely square. That is every time you multiply your light source by 4, you double the max distance/ double the brightness at the same distance.

for example your torch clearly illuminates a 20-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination out to a 40-foot radius. 4 torches clearly illuminates 40ft, and shadowy to 80ft. 16 torches clearly illuminates 80ft (and is pretty hot nearby, why are you carrying a bonfire!?).

I would go with the suggestion to treat similarly crit multipliers. add one level and 20ft every time you double the light. (shadowy, clearly, as daylight, very bright).

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-23, 02:50 PM
I think the questions and answers are not specific enough.
you are increasing the Radiant Emittance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux) (amount of light from a source) and some of you are discussing the brightness near the center(radiant exitance), some are talking about the distance the light travels, and some are talking about the brightness on a surface (irradiance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance)) some distance away from the source.

so anyhow, both the brightness on a surface, and the distance light travels are inversely square. That is every time you multiply your light source by 4, you double the max distance/ double the brightness at the same distance.

for example your torch clearly illuminates a 20-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination out to a 40-foot radius. 4 torches clearly illuminates 40ft, and shadowy to 80ft. 16 torches clearly illuminates 80ft (and is pretty hot nearby, why are you carrying a bonfire!?).

I would go with the suggestion to treat similarly crit multipliers. add one level and 20ft every time you double the light. (shadowy, clearly, as daylight, very bright).

Thank you, someone who actually knows the actual science of it.

Which is interesting in itself, since the effect is rather more than I would have guessed. And, as you say, rather easy to adjudicate.

So, in thery, with enough continual flames, you can certainly light up a large area (if you don't mind dazzling yourself).

You still can't produce daylight, though. (You might be able to get fire-light as bright as daylight, then, but that's subtly not the same thing.)

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-25, 03:58 PM
I would point out that continual flame is magic and thus the light is magic.
Which there is no reason for it to obey the laws of Radiant Emittance.

That aside assuming magical light is bound by the laws of radiant Emittance there are other things to think about, such as putting a continual flame item inside a lantern. Lanterns are often designed to intensify the light most notable in D&D with the bullseye and hooded lantern.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-25, 05:25 PM
I would point out that continual flame is magic and thus the light is magic.
Which there is no reason for it to obey the laws of Radiant Emittance.

No reason for it not to either, especially if adhering to it stops PC attempts to work around the system...


That aside assuming magical light is bound by the laws of radiant Emittance there are other things to think about, such as putting a continual flame item inside a lantern. Lanterns are often designed to intensify the light most notable in D&D with the bullseye and hooded lantern.

Personally, I treat a lantern with a continual flame to have light as a lantern, albiet one that doesn't run out of fuel.

ExtravagantEvil
2010-07-25, 05:34 PM
This reminds me of something that happened yesterday, one of the PC's in a steam punk-ish campaign blinded orcs by casting light on a bullet and shooting it.

Binks
2010-07-25, 05:53 PM
Don't forget, however, that gluing the beads together means a significant amount of the light (depending on the pattern/number used) is shining right into other beads, effectively wasted. How translucent/transparent is sovereign glue anyways?

Fitz10019
2010-07-25, 07:41 PM
Better to glue the beads along a length of rope, and uncoil it when you need to light a larger area.

Kalirren
2010-07-25, 09:39 PM
Don't forget, however, that gluing the beads together means a significant amount of the light (depending on the pattern/number used) is shining right into other beads, effectively wasted. How translucent/transparent is sovereign glue anyways?

Shouldn't be a problem with Prestidigitation.

Dilb
2010-07-25, 10:57 PM
I think the questions and answers are not specific enough.
you are increasing the Radiant Emittance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux) (amount of light from a source) and some of you are discussing the brightness near the center(radiant exitance), some are talking about the distance the light travels, and some are talking about the brightness on a surface (irradiance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance)) some distance away from the source.

so anyhow, both the brightness on a surface, and the distance light travels are inversely square. That is every time you multiply your light source by 4, you double the max distance/ double the brightness at the same distance.

for example your torch clearly illuminates a 20-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination out to a 40-foot radius. 4 torches clearly illuminates 40ft, and shadowy to 80ft. 16 torches clearly illuminates 80ft (and is pretty hot nearby, why are you carrying a bonfire!?).

I would go with the suggestion to treat similarly crit multipliers. add one level and 20ft every time you double the light. (shadowy, clearly, as daylight, very bright).

While true, you run into practical difficulties doing this. Light is emitted from the flame, and to add the light together you need to keep the flames from blocking each other. Flames emit light because they can also absorb light, it's literally little bits of soot that emit the light. If you just tie 4 torches together with the flames at the same level, you get roughly double the light (i.e. about 40% further illumination), because you can only see 2 of the flames from any one direction, with the exception of straight above.

If you build a wall-of-candles, there's a limit to how intense the light can get regardless of the number of candles (roughly 100 times brighter than a candle at 1 foot, also known as 1 foot candle), although it will emit light further out.

Sunlight, incidentally, is roughly 10 000 foot candles on a sunny day, or 1000 foot candles on a cloudy day. Warding off vampires with torches requires a fairly contrived arrangement, even if you allow sunlight-equivalent illumination to work.

Jastermereel
2010-07-25, 11:32 PM
So unless you have a way to concentrate the light (e.g. lenses or mirrors) you'd be better off tying those beads onto rats, placing those rats in a sack, and then scattering them whenever you walk into a room :smallamused:

I think I might have to steal that as an awesome and strange entrance for a NPC.


Oh, so this *isn't* about how to abuse a Called (not Summoned) Lantern Archon for a LOT of wealth?

I was rather disappointed it wasn't about abusing meta-breath rules' pay-the-cost-after-the-use system. "You mean I can extend my breath weapon's range and duration near-infinitely and all I have to do is promise to not use it again for the rest of my short lived NPC life? Deal!"

ericgrau
2010-07-26, 12:36 AM
Since it's magic light overlapping areas of effect would not stack... if continual flame had an area of effect. But the spell has no area of effect, and instead says that it is equivalent in brightness to a torch. But the spell also says it looks like a regular flame, so I don't think you could concentrate it onto a tiny object.

If we assume a torch is about as bright as a light bulb, that's about 1500 lumens or so. The sun puts out about 5000 lumens per square foot. So you would need 3 spells per square foot it shines upon to equal daylight. So if you wanted daylight to a 20 foot radius, that's 4 * pi * r^2 = ~5000 square feet = 15,000 spells = 750,000 gp. Not very abusable IMO, even if it works.

OTOH if you want "bright" light to 40 feet like a daylight spell, that only takes 4 spells.

Breaw
2010-07-26, 12:45 AM
Putting more torches in a small area will increase the frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency) of the emmitance of light, but not the intensity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)) of the light.

I'm going to be as tactful as I can manage here, but that statement just broke my brain.

Light being emitted by a fire is (at least to first order approximation) blackbody radiations. That is to say, it's so hot that the EMR being radiated by the random motion of the particles is in the visible range.

When you say 'putting more torches in a small area will increase the frequency', you are saying that more fire will increase the frequency of the radiation being emitted, thereby making it blue. I think we can all agree that common experience dictates otherwise.

It has be stated earlier in this thread, but I figured I would stress it here. The reason that two candles doesn't brighten twice as much as one (if said candles are placed beside one another), is that the light is dissipating at 1/r^3. That is to say if you go twice as far away from the light source the brightness of the source will go down by a factor of 8.

Two candles are twice as bright as one (that is to say, they give off twice as many photons), but they don't light up twice as much space. They also don't seem twice as bright to us because human eyes perceive light on a logarithmic scale.

I'm sorry. Several of these points were brought up before in the thread, but it was all so mixed together with bad physics that I figured I should collect it all in one place. (This is where I get terribly humbled by someone noticing that I've messed something up royally in my explanation, hopefully not ;) )

I was very hesitant to post in this thread since my standard stance is that physics should never be discussed in DnD. It is an amusing thought exercise to muse on the physical ramifications of some DnD rules, but definitely not worth the time to try to make in game rulings based on real world physics. Real world physics has no place in DnD

However 2 fun examples of silly physics ramifications of DnD rules:

1)If you can build a scanning tunneling electron microscope, mage hand can destroy worlds

2)(4e) A^2 + B^2 = max{A^2,B^2}

Superglucose
2010-07-26, 12:50 AM
There are candelabras in the Arms and Equipment guide that hold from four to sixteen candles,
Maybe I am being over-stereotypically-male, but am I the only person who read this as "candle-bras" and envisioned a bra holding from four to sixteen candles?

senrath
2010-07-26, 12:50 AM
I was very hesitant to post in this thread since my standard stance is that physics should never be discussed in DnD. It is an amusing thought exercise to muse on the physical ramifications of some DnD rules, but definitely not worth the time to try to make in game rulings based on real world physics. Real world physics has no place in DnD


Actually, the rules state that physics apply unless otherwise stated.

Krazddndfreek
2010-07-26, 01:03 AM
...where? :smallconfused:

Ormur
2010-07-26, 01:04 AM
Maybe I am being over-stereotypically-male, but am I the only person who read this as "candle-bras" and envisioned a bra holding from four to sixteen candles?

I had to look that word up, it looks really weird to me, candle-abras or candela-bras? Neither seems to make much sense so me so I guess you anglophones swiped it from some other language.

senrath
2010-07-26, 01:08 AM
...where? :smallconfused:

Well, I thought there was a line in the DMG about assuming real world physics unless otherwise stated, but I can't find it. I'll get back to you if I run across it.

Edit: Ah, found where I read it. It's not an actual rule, but a mention on the assumptions that went into the world-building chapter such that "...the laws of physics are applicable..." because "...unless they are told otherwise, this situation is what your players expect."

Breaw
2010-07-26, 06:49 AM
Actually, the rules state that physics apply unless otherwise stated.

The problem generally is that the discussions typically don't talk about situations that aren't covered by the rules. They typically deal with situations where what the rules by RAW don't really match up with what you expect from reality.

In this case you have lighting rules. It seems to me that 'the rule' is that any two light sources in the same square occupy the same space and illuminate both of their respective 'areas' simultaneously. That is to say, a torch and a bulls-eye lantern would illuminate both a forward facing cone as well as a smaller circle. No real advantage to say, two torches in the same square by RAW as far as I tell (in my less than perfect knowledge of too much source material).

I tend to look and DnD rules as permissive rather than restrictive. That is to say, the rules tell you specific things that are allowed, and the rest is up to the GM. The rules however, do not (in my interpretation) specifically state all things that are not allowed. As such speculating as to what a DM 'would have to' allow because 'it makes sense in physics' isn't really reasonable.

What if daylight hurts some creatures because of UV radiation? No amount of torches is going to reproduce that. As much as I understand how silly it is that two torches in DnD are no brighter than one, I would (for any circumstance I can think of) rather play in a world where this and many other simplifications of reality are true.

-Breaw

Emmerask
2010-07-26, 07:09 AM
Well, I thought there was a line in the DMG about assuming real world physics unless otherwise stated, but I can't find it. I'll get back to you if I run across it.

Edit: Ah, found where I read it. It's not an actual rule, but a mention on the assumptions that went into the world-building chapter such that "...the laws of physics are applicable..." because "...unless they are told otherwise, this situation is what your players expect."

Problem is that if you take this for granted, especially for magic (which is used in this case) then half the spells in the books will simply not work or kill/hurt you if used :smallbiggrin:

Thespianus
2010-07-26, 07:14 AM
Try lighting a large room with a candle. The add another candle right next to it. Does the amount of area the candle light up double? No. If you want to light a room with candles, you use a lot of candles spaced out.
The "Inverse square law" isn't just a good idea. :)

The lit area increases with two lights, but it doesn't double. If you put 100 lights in a small area, the area being lit up increases noticably.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-26, 08:26 AM
The "Inverse square law" isn't just a good idea. :)

The lit area increases with two lights, but it doesn't double. If you put 100 lights in a small area, the area being lit up increases noticably.

Yes, but not a hundred times, i.e., the increase is not linear, and that was what I was trying (ineptly) to get at with that particular example. Bagelz and Breaw clarified rather better, as they seem to have more of an technical idea about it than I do!

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-26, 09:24 PM
Ah, found where I read it. It's not an actual rule, but a mention on the assumptions that went into the world-building chapter such that "...the laws of physics are applicable..." because "...unless they are told otherwise, this situation is what your players expect."
Yeah, it's more pointing out to the DM the normal assumption by an audience (including a roleplaying group) that a setting is like reality unless noted (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeRealityUnlessNoted).

The funny thing about D&D is that there are a lot of things that we can infer to be unlike reality but that aren't always explicitly stated. It would pretty absurd for the Periodic Table to exactly apply in a world with the four classical elements, as illustrated in OotS. (Fire isn't even a substance. It's a chemical reaction! They're not called "reactionals".) The way that levels work mean that upper limits on human ability don't apply, and so neither do the physical laws that underpin them.

More broadly, magic and the rules in general seem to work in terms of platonic forms, which seems more suited to a D&D setting than reductionism anyway. (For example: Bull's strength works just fine on many different things, because it only interacts with them in terms of them being things-with-strength. Strength may be connected to muscles, but targeting the muscles would be going the long way around, for a spell. Easier to just manipulate Strength directly; that way it also works on constructs and oozes and other things that don't have muscles. The D&D universe is rather conveniently object-oriented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented), pretty much.)

Randel
2010-07-27, 02:43 AM
Or you could cast continual flame on a whole bunch of tiny beads and then attach them all over your suit. This would cause your whole body to emit light as if it was covered in a thousand torches. I'm sure you could argue that it would be uncomfortable for other people to look at your suit. Just put on some goggles or something to protect yourself from the glare and you can run into battle with a suit that hurts peoples eyes when they look at you!

Actually... wearing a super-bright suit of armor would drastically cut down on your stealth (and by extension anyone near you) for anyone who isn't blind, but it should be hard for others to look directly at it without getting blinded.


Or, you could cast continual flame on a lot of transparent beads and dump them all into a tube that has a polished and reflective inside. Have just a tiny opening on one end with some adjusting lenses and you could make a primitive laser... though it probably wouldn't be able to cause actual damage but instead fry peoples retinas.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-27, 02:57 AM
D&D might ignore real world physics, true. But in real life if you multiply the number of lights the room does get bright. Ten candles provides ten times as much light as one candle.

And the beads aren't actually in the same space. They're just close together.

Every "exploit" that relies on fastidiously using D&D physics for one portion, then using "realistic" physics for another bit is filled with fail. It's like arguments about inertia and such w regards to the commoner railgun.