PDA

View Full Version : Killing Catgirls: Physics Glitches in D&D



byaku rai
2011-03-24, 11:38 AM
So there are a number of ways in which D&D fails to accurately represent physics. This is a thread to discuss any various glitches you may have encountered while playing.

For example: a falling character does not accelerate, instead falling at a uniform 30 feet per round. Among other issues this presents, it means that gravity, instead of causing acceleration, causes velocity. Disturbing implications: any object thrown upwards at a greater speed than 30 feet per round will continue upwards forever (or at least until it hits something). Arrows don't arc, they travel in a straight line, etc.

Note: if this has been done before, I apologize. I couldn't find a previous version.

hamishspence
2011-03-24, 11:44 AM
For example: a falling character does not accelerate, instead falling at a uniform 30 feet per round.

Which D&D edition would this be? I don't recall it working this way in 3.5.

tonberrian
2011-03-24, 11:46 AM
As I've laid out before, 3.5's Gust of Wind.

Fouredged Sword
2011-03-24, 11:47 AM
Objects can pass relitivistic speeds through handing things along a line of people.

Yora
2011-03-24, 11:49 AM
Gust of Wind is magic, it's supposed to override the laws of physics like any other spell does.
Gold coins weight as much as copper coins though gold is one of the heaviest elements in the universe.

hamishspence
2011-03-24, 11:52 AM
The coins don't have to be the same thickness- just the same diameter.

That said, the diameter shown in the PHB might be a bit wide for a coin only 1/50 of a pound.

tonberrian
2011-03-24, 11:53 AM
Ooh, I forgot one! Using the right epic weapon enhancement (which is achievable pre-epic thanks to Fiend of Possession) someone can throw a knife at the moon/sun/furthest star you can see and have it hit it. You can even have it come back within 6 seconds if you're a Bloodstorm Blade or you have a Returning weapon.

Kilbourne
2011-03-24, 11:53 AM
Gold coins weight as much as copper coins though gold is one of the heaviest elements in the universe.

Gold is actually dense, not heavy.

A kilogram of gold and a kilogram of copper are the same weight, but a liter of gold and a liter of copper are not.

Yora
2011-03-24, 11:55 AM
For the same volume, gold is heavy. Because of it's density.

It's not the proper scientific way to put it, but for most purposes people know what you say. Like you can call something wet. I don't think wet is a concept that exists in physics.

hamishspence
2011-03-24, 11:57 AM
If gold coins and copper coins were explicitly the same volume, I'd understand the complaint.

But the PHB never goes out and says that all coins are the same thickness as well as the same diameter.

byaku rai
2011-03-24, 11:57 AM
@hamishspence: this is 3.5, as my DM does it. I'm not sure if it's official, it's just how it goes in his world (which is flat and rectangular and has pi=4, btw).

Magic can't really be counted because it's designed to make the laws of physics go lay down and cry in a corner somewhere.

On the other hand, some of the 3.5 spells (3.5 is all i'm really familiar with) are a bit weird. For example, fireball, despite being an explosive blast, has no associated kinetic energy, i.e. no shockwave. :smallannoyed:

tonberrian
2011-03-24, 11:59 AM
Gust of Wind is magic, it's supposed to override the laws of physics like any other spell does.

It's supposed to do anything a regular gust of wind does (in fact, it is consistent with the severe wind effects on pg. 95 of the DMG).

If you prefer, you could take it as the wind effects in general being glitchy.

randomhero00
2011-03-24, 12:04 PM
If DnD actually represented physics...it'd be annoying as heck. There'd be no teleport spells. No transmutation. Etc. Most magic wouldn't exist because it breaks the laws of physics.

PS what's with the line "killing catgirls"? I don't get it.

byaku rai
2011-03-24, 12:08 PM
As I've said, magic is an exception.

The catgirl line is from a running joke: Every time you try to apply realworld physics to D&D, a catgirl dies. :smallfrown:

gourdcaptain
2011-03-24, 12:08 PM
PS what's with the line "killing catgirls"? I don't get it.

It's a reference to a lien I've seen other places (usually online anime fandom) - every time you question the logic of something, a catgirl dies. Along the lines of not believing in faeries killing them, I believe.

randomhero00
2011-03-24, 12:10 PM
It's a reference to a lien I've seen other places (usually online anime fandom) - every time you question the logic of something, a catgirl dies. Along the lines of not believing in faeries killing them, I believe.

That seems odd. Any idea or explanation on how that came about?

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-24, 12:10 PM
For the same volume, gold is heavy. Because of it's density.

It's not the proper scientific way to put it, but for most purposes people know what you say. Like you can call something wet. I don't think wet is a concept that exists in physics.

Wet is a concept that exists in chemistry, or something similar to wetness, at least. Basically, it determines how a liquid interacts with a solid surface (mercury, for example, cannot exactly make things "wet").

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 12:11 PM
@hamishspence: this is 3.5, as my DM does it. I'm not sure if it's official, it's just how it goes in his world (which is flat and rectangular and has pi=4, btw).

pi = 4?

Oh dear. In afraid that wouldn't work out well at all.

byaku rai
2011-03-24, 12:14 PM
It actually isn't all that bad.:smalltongue: it usually just means that effects which would be circular are square instead, and movement is 5 feet per square in any direction (including diagonal)

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 12:20 PM
Yeah...have fun with square wheels, gears, and non-ecludian geometry.

Essentially every shape will change, as well as everything that uses, has, or is based on a shape.

byaku rai
2011-03-24, 12:26 PM
It's easier if you just don't try to think about it too hard. Especially since the square wheels work just as well as the round ones used to. :smallbiggrin:

The_Jackal
2011-03-24, 12:27 PM
There's no happy ending at the bottom of this rabbit hole. The reasons the game systems have bypassed the laws of physics is because it's expedient, not for some nefarious agenda to undercut verisimilitude. Get over it.

byaku rai
2011-03-24, 12:30 PM
The thing is, though, some of these glitches are humorous. We're not complaining. At least, I'm not. Just having fun.:smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 12:33 PM
It's easier if you just don't try to think about it too hard. Especially since the square wheels work just as well as the round ones used to. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more things start to make my head hurt.

Like square gears. Really now, how does that work?


Edit: Yeah...I don't take most catgirl killing as a big deal. Gust of Wind doesn't give me a useful degree of precision for thrust? At least, not enough precision to help me make a tank out of it? Feh. Everything has a certain level of abstraction, and it almost certainly is not meant to be used to design a tank.

byaku rai
2011-03-24, 12:34 PM
It's powered by Rule Zero, or in other words, IT JUST DOES.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 12:37 PM
This means that spheres are blocks, logically. If circles are squares, then spheres are cubes.

So, all basic physics are done using a cube.

So..what do cubes become? I suspect that such a silly rule zero in any campaign I'm playing in would quickly devolve into madness.

Britter
2011-03-24, 12:39 PM
Serious question. How often do these sorts of fringe issues impact actual play, in your experience? I ask only becasue I have never personally had a player try to abuse game physics for anything, so the whole concept is quite foreign to me.

RndmNumGen
2011-03-24, 12:40 PM
The coins don't have to be the same thickness- just the same diameter.

That said, the diameter shown in the PHB might be a bit wide for a coin only 1/50 of a pound.

What page is that on? I don't think I've seen it.



Like square gears. Really now, how does that work?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYcqJ5HdxA4

Tiki Snakes
2011-03-24, 12:43 PM
This means that spheres are blocks, logically. If circles are squares, then spheres are cubes.

So, all basic physics are done using a cube.

So..what do cubes become? I suspect that such a silly rule zero in any campaign I'm playing in would quickly devolve into madness.

Spheres are Cubes. Cubes are non-round Cubes.

Apophis
2011-03-24, 12:43 PM
What page is that on? I don't think I've seen it.

It's on page 168.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 12:48 PM
Serious question. How often do these sorts of fringe issues impact actual play, in your experience? I ask only becasue I have never personally had a player try to abuse game physics for anything, so the whole concept is quite foreign to me.

You have to look for it pretty hard. For instance, in the gust of wind example, there is no logical reason to use a portable hole and a plate enchanted with gust of wind...when you could simply use a Decanter of Endless x. It's smaller, it provides more thrust, and it's cheaper. Furthermore, in it's rules, it specifies that newton's second law applies, pushing back on the user. Additionally, it works in areas without air.

So, if you actual goal is to build a hovertank using D&D rules, it's quite easily doable. For the hurried hovertank pilot, SBG has rules for mobile fortresses, so you needn't get bogged down in the details.

My players occasionally do creative things, but I've never had a physics situation that couldn't be solved with RAW. Sure, you can pass objects instantly with readied actions. It doesn't mean that if you let go of the item, it goes flying at superluminus speeds.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-24, 12:48 PM
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly meowed out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 12:49 PM
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly meowed out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Look, the catgirls are fine...they're just four dimensional now. Which means that fat one looks like a fleshy cube. So sorry.

Goober4473
2011-03-24, 12:50 PM
a falling character does not accelerate, instead falling at a uniform 30 feet per round.

Isn't it 200 feet per round (based on memory, not books)?

Also, an object couldn't go up forever by exceeding a speed of 200 (or 30 in your DM's world) feet per round. Instead, it would travel to it's maximum range at full speed in one round, then immediately begin to fall at 200 feet per round. Equally strange...

byaku rai
2011-03-24, 12:51 PM
This means that spheres are blocks, logically. If circles are squares, then spheres are cubes.

So, all basic physics are done using a cube.

So..what do cubes become? I suspect that such a silly rule zero in any campaign I'm playing in would quickly devolve into madness.

We're all mad here. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though, it's not much of an impact in the long run. Most of us don't think about it. Interesting, though.

EDIT: huh. you're right about the instant velocity switch. O_o and I'll look up the falling speed. x_x

warmachine
2011-03-24, 12:51 PM
In 4e, a character moves faster by moving diagonally, like a bishop in chess, than orthogonally, like a rook in chess.

subject42
2011-03-24, 01:10 PM
This means that spheres are blocks, logically. If circles are squares, then spheres are cubes.

So, all basic physics are done using a cube.

Minecraft d20?

John Campbell
2011-03-24, 01:11 PM
That seems odd. Any idea or explanation on how that came about?
Memetic mutation. Googling "God kills a kitten" will get you the original meme (probably work-safe). I'm not sure how it got from there to killing catgirls over physics, but that's the Internet for you.


pi = 4?

Oh dear. In afraid that wouldn't work out well at all.

Yeah, geometry in D&D is seriously, seriously messed up. A square and its inscribed circle have the same circumference (really, take some circular AoE templates and count it up), but different areas... pi is not so much 4 as variable depending on what you're using it for. (In 3.x, anyway. In 4E, I believe it's just 4.)

Similarly, the trig functions give different results depending on the size of the triangle. sin(45) is 1 for a right triangle with 5' legs, but 0.666... for one with 10' legs, and 0.75 for one with 15' legs. Congruent triangles aren't. (Again, in 3.x. In 4E, sin(45) is always 1.)

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 01:18 PM
Diagonal movement is quite nice in 3.5, actually. You shouldn't get a variance >5 feet from what your position would be with the full math until you'd have already have moved off a typical map anyhow.

Unfortunately, the same is not true of 4e, which actually does use ball = cube logic. Stupid firecube. Or having someone to far to hit, and too close to run up and hit. That's a very specific level of distance.

golentan
2011-03-24, 01:50 PM
I once did an in depth thought experiment involving the implications of tracking time in the combat round/action economy by RAW (no DM interference). The upshot was that whenever you tried to seriously model the motion of an object, you could track any two of its speed, location, or position in time, but not all three simultaneously. And this resulted in truly bizarre traits.

You can read the resulting argument if you feel like indulging me. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133461)

randomhero00
2011-03-24, 01:56 PM
So is killing catgirls bad or good? Aren't they usually cute?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 01:59 PM
... whenever you tried to seriously model the motion of an object, you could track any two of its speed, location, or position in time, but not all three simultaneously. And this resulted in truly bizarre traits.

...it's quantum gaming!

lesser_minion
2011-03-24, 02:53 PM
When we've finished claiming that Math.PI == 4, note that the templates are intended to show which D&D spaces would be affected by an area effect, not the exact shape and size of the area effect itself. In 3.x, at least.

Also, for future reference, the rate at which an object falls simply isn't specified in D&D -- the "30 feet per round" thing is your DM's house rule, that's all.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 03:06 PM
Also, for future reference, the rate at which an object falls simply isn't specified in D&D -- the "30 feet per round" thing is your DM's house rule, that's all.

It's specified. IIRC, it tops out at something like 600ft a round. It's pretty fast.

Shade Kerrin
2011-03-24, 04:53 PM
On falling, If I remember correctly:
For flying creatures that find something interfering with their wings, they fall 150ft in the first round, and 300ft in subsequent rounds.
It was never explicitly written, but a series of questions to the Wizards question group eventually got the answer that non-flying creatures double these values.

In other words, the same as Tyndmyr's recollection

The Big Dice
2011-03-24, 05:05 PM
Yeah...have fun with square wheels, gears, and non-ecludian geometry.
You know that non-Euclidiean geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry#Models_of_non-Euclidean_geometry) isn't particularly arcane. And that any time you've been on a long haul plane flight you've benefitted from it?

And that the problem isn't that D&D doesn't model physucal action well. It's that people always try to jam real physics into a place where it doesn't fit. With all kinds of extrapolations and assumptions that lead to things like commoner railguns.

Sacrieur
2011-03-24, 05:55 PM
Isn't it 200 feet per round (based on memory, not books)?

Also, an object couldn't go up forever by exceeding a speed of 200 (or 30 in your DM's world) feet per round. Instead, it would travel to it's maximum range at full speed in one round, then immediately begin to fall at 200 feet per round. Equally strange...

No. Any upward instantaneous force applied to an object enough to create a velocity greater than the falling velocity would continue going upwards. The whole thing is terribly broken.

TheFallenOne
2011-03-24, 06:49 PM
Imagine a wide, featureless plain. Two halflings, 20 feet speed, the same any way you look at them. Now they move away from each other fast as they can(no running), each turn making a double move. Only one of them goes 1 diagonal per turn, the other a straight line.

Fast forward one minute: both moved as fast as they could, had the same speed, no obstacles, but still one of them somehow moved 25 feet more. To make matters worse, his average speed ended up above his maximum speed

It is physically impossible for an average strength person to reliably kill anything with a single dagger attack, even a simple toad. Max damage crit brings it to -7, simple nonmagical DC 15 Heal check stabilizes it.

A giant can't smash a simple door or table with his 50 foot spear since it is a piercing weapon.

A gargantuan creature is affected by an AoE spell the same way no matter if it is lightly glanced by it or completely engulfed.

golentan
2011-03-24, 06:50 PM
No. Any upward instantaneous force applied to an object enough to create a velocity greater than the falling velocity would continue going upwards. The whole thing is terribly broken.

That's making the huge assumption that it's a one time deal. You're assuming that it's a one off, rather than a non-accelerating continuous effect (I.E. at any juncture where speed is not 33.33 feet/second down, upward velocity is reduced by 33.33 ft/second or speed is set to 33.33 ft/second down).

I don't think you can make the assumption that just because it isn't accelerating an object doesn't mean it isn't continuously changing its speed. This is DnD, after all.

tonberrian
2011-03-24, 07:04 PM
The new and improved commoner railgun is an arbitrarily large group of commoners grappling each other while you position an adamantine disk enchanted with a Permanencied Gust of Wind and an aiming apparatus with a plate that blocks line of effect to the commoners. You line up the shot, remove the plate, and the disk accelerates ridiculously fast and cuts through anything in its path.

Lord Thurlvin
2011-03-24, 07:17 PM
The new and improved commoner railgun is an arbitrarily large group of commoners grappling each other while you position an adamantine disk enchanted with a Permanencied Gust of Wind and an aiming apparatus with a plate that blocks line of effect to the commoners. You line up the shot, remove the plate, and the disk accelerates ridiculously fast and cuts through anything in its path.

Why are the commoners necessary here?

TheFallenOne
2011-03-24, 07:19 PM
The new and improved commoner railgun is an arbitrarily large group of commoners grappling each other while you position an adamantine disk enchanted with a Permanencied Gust of Wind and an aiming apparatus with a plate that blocks line of effect to the commoners. You line up the shot, remove the plate, and the disk accelerates ridiculously fast and cuts through anything in its path.

No it doesn't. The Commoner Railgun is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in D&D, and that bloody means something.

Why? Because it relies on arbitrarily switching from Game Physics to RL Physics at a convenient point. You accelerate something abusing the game mechanics, then when you let it go you suddenly invoke Newtons first and damage calculations based on velocity of the object. If we never switch from game physics, the whole exercise is pointless and does no damage.

tonberrian
2011-03-24, 07:25 PM
Why are the commoners necessary here?

Gust of Wind apparently applies thrust based on the total mass it's acting upon. Arbitrarily large number of commoners in one space means a ridiculously high acceleration of the disk, though it can't break lightspeed.

It's based off an interpretation from the Rule 0 thread.

golentan
2011-03-24, 07:35 PM
No it doesn't. The Commoner Railgun is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in D&D, and that bloody means something.

Why? Because it relies on arbitrarily switching from Game Physics to RL Physics at a convenient point. You accelerate something abusing the game mechanics, then when you let it go you suddenly invoke Newtons first and damage calculations based on velocity of the object. If we never switch from game physics, the whole exercise is pointless and does no damage.

It's not pointless. It just does no damage and isn't a weapon. There's a difference. It can be used for nigh instantaneous mail transmission, transportation, or experimentation. It remains useful (possibly even gaining use) in tippyverse style scenarios due to its ability to work through AMFs and the replacement of commoners with constructs or the undead.

Lord Thurlvin
2011-03-24, 07:39 PM
Gust of Wind apparently applies thrust based on the total mass it's acting upon. Arbitrarily large number of commoners in one space means a ridiculously high acceleration of the disk, though it can't break lightspeed.

It's based off an interpretation from the Rule 0 thread.

There aren't any limitations on the number of creatures that can occupy the same space?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 07:45 PM
It's not pointless. It just does no damage and isn't a weapon. There's a difference. It can be used for nigh instantaneous mail transmission, transportation, or experimentation. It remains useful (possibly even gaining use) in tippyverse style scenarios due to its ability to work through AMFs and the replacement of commoners with constructs or the undead.

In practical purposes, a buncha lowbie commoners in a line are...food. In the world that is D&D, I can't see such a system working for long.

tonberrian
2011-03-24, 07:45 PM
There aren't any limitations on the number of creatures that can occupy the same space?

With the grapple rules? None I'm aware of. Which should also be in this thread, because if having a sufficiently large number of commoners grapple each other and form a black hole isn't a physics glitch, I don't know what is.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 07:48 PM
You know that non-Euclidiean geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry#Models_of_non-Euclidean_geometry) isn't particularly arcane. And that any time you've been on a long haul plane flight you've benefitted from it?

And that the problem isn't that D&D doesn't model physucal action well. It's that people always try to jam real physics into a place where it doesn't fit. With all kinds of extrapolations and assumptions that lead to things like commoner railguns.

Oh, Im aware of both.

Still, a curved surface makes pi smaller, I do believe. So, by measuring it on a somewhat dished surface, it would be possible to get say...pi =3 easy enough.

But pi = 4? That's out there in pure math land.

Qwertystop
2011-03-24, 07:48 PM
There aren't any limitations on the number of creatures that can occupy the same space?

As far as I can tell, not when they are grappling.

golentan
2011-03-24, 07:53 PM
Assuming, as said, you limit it to commoners (since it really just require creatures capable of taking an action), it's still more than valid within the confines of a given city. If nothing else, setting it up as a reserve force in case of attacks lets the city coordinate disaster response or defense as a whole network.

Here's one from this very website: Things don't have to be sharp to cut things. An improvised weapon from a bar stool has as easy a time going through a rope as a dagger. Durkon's Hammer, people!

Lord Thurlvin
2011-03-24, 07:54 PM
With the grapple rules? None I'm aware of. Which should also be in this thread, because if having a sufficiently large number of commoners grapple each other and form a black hole isn't a physics glitch, I don't know what is.

Weird. I guess these kinds of situations are what Rule 0 is for.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 08:05 PM
Only four people are allowed to grapple someone. Number is variable depending on size of people trying to grapple, so it's clearly size dependent. Note also that the starting a grapple portion says it automatically fails if you "cannot move into the space", as you must to successfully grapple.

While it doesn't actually ban an endless chain of grapplers all grappling the next guy in line in some sort of giant dogpile, it's not ridiculous to rule that...people still take the same amount of space no matter who the grapple target is, and the limit thus still applies. After all, grappling does not change the size of the character.

Edit: Rules Compendium has what's probably the best summary of the grapple rules.

Sacrieur
2011-03-24, 09:35 PM
That's making the huge assumption that it's a one time deal. You're assuming that it's a one off, rather than a non-accelerating continuous effect (I.E. at any juncture where speed is not 33.33 feet/second down, upward velocity is reduced by 33.33 ft/second or speed is set to 33.33 ft/second down).

I don't think you can make the assumption that just because it isn't accelerating an object doesn't mean it isn't continuously changing its speed. This is DnD, after all.

Actually you can't explain any of it, because the whole thing just blows physics to pieces.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-24, 10:08 PM
It's not a glitch, but if you use real world physics in conjunction with magic, you don't want to be a monk without a means of flight and an amulet of mighty fists enchanted with brilliant energy unless the world uses Spelljammer gravity rules. You're going down, literally.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 10:28 PM
It's not a glitch, but if you use real world physics in conjunction with magic, you don't want to be a monk without a means of flight and an amulet of mighty fists enchanted with brilliant energy unless the world uses Spelljammer gravity rules. You're going down, literally.

Vanishing monks isn't a glitch, it's a feature.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-24, 10:33 PM
Vanishing monks isn't a glitch, it's a feature.
With a means of fly, it's a cheat code.:smallbiggrin:
One of the most fun I had killing catgirls was trying to figure out how to create a mini greenhouse inside a bag of holding to create enough oxygen to sustain a halfling as well as finding a way to keep it at a comfortable temperature. Yes, yes, you could just have a bottle of air, but where is the fun in that?:smallamused:

John Campbell
2011-03-24, 11:39 PM
Oh, I just remembered one of my favorite WTF bits. The sight and illumination rules are totally broken and nonsensical, the best part being that the darkness rules are backwards.

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.

Not "creatures without darkvision cannot see things in areas of darkness". Being unable to see doesn't depend on the illumination on the object being observed; it depends on the illumination on the observer. If you've got two humans standing 50' apart in a dark room, and one of them lights a torch, which casts bright light in a 20' radius and shadowy illumination out to 40', the person standing 50' away cannot see the torch or the person holding it, because he's in darkness and therefore blind.

There does not seem to be any indication, on the other hand, that the person holding the torch can't see perfectly into the total darkness beyond the torch radius, because he's standing in bright light and thus not blinded... though anyone in the intermediate zone of shadowy illumination has concealment against him.

For bonus points, the darkness spell doesn't necessarily make things darker. It sets the illumination level in its area to shadowy, regardless of what it was before. Even if it was already total darkness. So our poor human who's blinded by the total darkness can relieve his blindness by casting darkness on himself.

(Pathfinder fixed that last bit, at least, though it didn't touch the rest of the illumination nonsense.)

jvluso
2011-03-25, 12:00 AM
Even if the grappling rules do have a rule about limited grapplers in a space, there is nothing about infinite Goliath commoners riding each other and still fitting in a 5x5x5 cube and making a black hole.

warmachine
2011-03-25, 05:02 AM
Throw Splash Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#throwSplashWeapon)

If you throw a splash weapon at target creature or object, all other creatures (but not mere objects) in a 15ft by 15ft square grid centred on the impact are hit by the splash, even if the target is prone or you miss. If you throw at the floor, only creatures (but not mere objects) in a 10ft by 10ft square grid are hit by the splash.

potatocubed
2011-03-25, 06:46 AM
With an epic-level Escape Artist check, a character can cram their head - and the rest of their body - through a space smaller than their head.

Probably a side-effect of all the bizarre geometry.

warmachine
2011-03-25, 06:52 AM
A character caught in a large area effect that completely fills its area, such as a fireball, can completely dodge the effect despite never leaving the area.

pasko77
2011-03-25, 07:35 AM
Oh, Im aware of both.

Still, a curved surface makes pi smaller, I do believe. So, by measuring it on a somewhat dished surface, it would be possible to get say...pi =3 easy enough.

But pi = 4? That's out there in pure math land.

I would like to see the grapple rules of such environment.

byaku rai
2011-03-25, 07:57 AM
So... many... dead... catgirls... :smallfrown:

To exonerate my DM, the falling speed issue happened while our warlock and sorceror were both being somewhat insane. And he actually ruled 30 feet per second, not per round. x.x my bad. I'll explain the actual circumstance next time i get to post.

The Big Dice
2011-03-25, 08:02 AM
So... many... dead... catgirls... :smallfrown:

To exonerate my DM, the falling speed issue happened while our warlock and sorceror were both being somewhat insane. And he actually ruled 30 feet per second, not per round. x.x my bad. I'll explain the actual circumstance next time i get to post.

I'd say in the absence of other rules, you fall to the ground in a turn. Unless you're very high, then you get a chance to use a spell, device or other things squirreled away on your sheet to save you.

But then I think D&DLand is a fairly abstract place.

lesser_minion
2011-03-25, 09:59 AM
As far as I can tell, not when they are grappling.

Yes, there are. Each commoner has a limit on how many characters can grapple him simultaneously (four of his size). You grapple and are grappled by everyone else involved in the grapple unless you have a special ability that says otherwise (in which case you aren't actually in the grapple), so you can't join a grapple if you don't have enough grappling slots for everyone already in there.

In other words, you can't have more than five commoners in a space (at least, not in any way that would give you a higher net mass).


Even if the grappling rules do have a rule about limited grapplers in a space, there is nothing about infinite Goliath commoners riding each other and still fitting in a 5x5x5 cube and making a black hole.

Actually, there is everything against it: Powerful Build only applies to certain situations. Determining whether or not a creature can be ridden is not one of them.

Eldan
2011-03-25, 10:00 AM
You could build a grappling matrix.

A grapples B, C, D and E.

B grapples A, F, G and H.

And so on. Would that work? Basically, a grappling network.

lesser_minion
2011-03-25, 10:13 AM
You could build a grappling matrix.

From what I can tell, grappling is always mutual, unless you have a special ability that says otherwise -- i.e, if A grapples B, C, D, and E, then B, C, D, and E all grapple A.

subject42
2011-03-25, 10:13 AM
With an epic-level Escape Artist check, a character can cram their head - and the rest of their body - through a space smaller than their head.

Probably a side-effect of all the bizarre geometry.

A friend of mine sent me a link a while back detailing an epic level character that was capable of using escape artist checks to climb into his own anus and back out his own mouth.

We're still pondering the ramifications of that one.

tonberrian
2011-03-25, 10:13 AM
That's the theory, yeah.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-25, 10:15 AM
From what I can tell, grappling is always mutual, unless you have a special ability that says otherwise -- i.e, if A grapples B, C, D, and E, then B, C, D, and E all grapple A.

This is also my interpretation. It is considered "a grapple", and for certain actions, you must beat everyone in the grapple, as per RC.

tonberrian
2011-03-25, 10:18 AM
This is also my interpretation. It is considered "a grapple", and for certain actions, you must beat everyone in the grapple, as per RC.

You're gonna have to back that up with rules. There's no indication in the SRD that your opponents include anyone but the particular four that grapple against you.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-25, 10:38 AM
You're gonna have to back that up with rules. There's no indication in the SRD that your opponents include anyone but the particular four that grapple against you.

The word Opponent is used routinely to describe adversaries in the rules. It is not limited only to the grapple rules. Therefore, anyone may be an opponent.

Reference: Search for "opponent" in the SRD.

Consider, to escape a grapple, you must beat the check results of each opponent. Ditto for moving a grapple.

Also, look at your options for getting into a grapple.

1. Starting a grapple. This is what happens if there is no grapple.
2. Joining a grapple. This is what happens if there is.



Joining a Grapple

If your target is already grappling someone else, you can use an attack to start a grapple, as above, except that the target doesn’t get an attack of opportunity against you, and your grab automatically succeeds. You still have to make a successful opposed grapple check to become part of the grapple.


So..by joining the grapple, you don't start a new, different grapple, you join into the existing one.

warmachine
2011-03-25, 11:21 AM
The range of a thrown object depends entirely on its nature and not the strength of the thrower.

This means initial speed has no effect on trajectory range or force has no relationship to acceleration. The latter may explain falling speed.

tonberrian
2011-03-25, 11:40 AM
The word Opponent is used routinely to describe adversaries in the rules. It is not limited only to the grapple rules. Therefore, anyone may be an opponent.

Reference: Search for "opponent" in the SRD.

Consider, to escape a grapple, you must beat the check results of each opponent. Ditto for moving a grapple.

Also, look at your options for getting into a grapple.

1. Starting a grapple. This is what happens if there is no grapple.
2. Joining a grapple. This is what happens if there is.



So..by joining the grapple, you don't start a new, different grapple, you join into the existing one.

You have yet to provide evidence that just because you start grappling one person in a grapple you grapple them all. The whole chain of people is the grapple, but the only part that concerns you is the four guys you're next to.

Consider the real life example where you've got 8 guys grappling together. Arnold has Benny by the waist from behind, while Chris is trying to pull him off. Dennis and Benny are trying to rip each other's arms off. Eric's trying to twist Dennis's leg. Fred's trying to grip Chris, but he's shoving his face away. Gary the bouncer is trying to knock Dennis and Benny's heads together, and Hector is trying to pull him away from the rest.

Arnold is grappling Benny and Chris.
Benny is grappling Arnold, Dennis, and Gary.
Chris is grappling Arnold and Fred.
Dennis is grappling Benny, Eric, and Gary.
Eric is grappling Dennis.
Fred is grappling Chris.
Gary is grappling Benny, Dennis, and Hector.
Hector is grappling Gary.

The only difference between this and 3.5 is that they're all in the same square.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-25, 11:52 AM
You have yet to provide evidence that just because you start grappling one person in a grapple you grapple them all. The whole chain of people is the grapple, but the only part that concerns you is the four guys you're next to.

There is "a grapple". You can either be in the grapple, or not. To "join a grapple", you may select any opponent to make the opposed test against. Then, bam, you are in the grapple.

That is all the level of detail there is. There is nothing that says you only care about the four guys you are "next to". And "next to" is fairly meaningless because everyone can be dogpiled on one square.


Consider the real life example where you've got 8 guys grappling together. Arnold has Benny by the waist from behind, while Chris is trying to pull him off. Dennis and Benny are trying to rip each other's arms off. Eric's trying to twist Dennis's leg. Fred's trying to grip Chris, but he's shoving his face away. Gary the bouncer is trying to knock Dennis and Benny's heads together, and Hector is trying to pull him away from the rest.

Arnold is grappling Benny and Chris.
Benny is grappling Arnold, Dennis, and Gary.
Chris is grappling Arnold and Fred.
Dennis is grappling Benny, Eric, and Gary.
Eric is grappling Dennis.
Fred is grappling Chris.
Gary is grappling Benny, Dennis, and Hector.
Hector is grappling Gary.

The only difference between this and 3.5 is that they're all in the same square.

It may be a real life example, but it's not a D&D grapple.

Additional grapples are merely joining the grapple. It's not 8 separate grapples. It is one grapple. The idea that the rule "joining a grapple" starts an entirely separate grapple doesn't make sense.

tonberrian
2011-03-25, 12:01 PM
It is one grapple. You just happen to only be able to effect four other guys in it. You haven't provided RAW that says that this isn't possible, so it remains a possible interpretation, just as much as yours is. To say that it definitively isn't is Rule 0.

Goober4473
2011-03-25, 12:28 PM
No. Any upward instantaneous force applied to an object enough to create a velocity greater than the falling velocity would continue going upwards. The whole thing is terribly broken.

I don't think D&D has velocity or momentum anywhere in it. Just movement speed and range. Thus, a creature that could move upwards faster than the falling speed (while not flying, as flying creatures aren't falling) could outrun gravity, but an object would simply reach its maximum thrown range (which is not based on the thrower's Strength) and then immediately begin to fall.

For example, I throw a dagger, range increment 10 feet, up. It goes 50 feet, since thrown weapons go out to 5 range increments, and then immediately begins to fall 200 feet per round (or whatever the falling speed actually is), with no acceleration or deceleration. Just an instantaneous switch in direction. It doesn't fall slower due to having been going up just a moment before, since it has reached the end of its range, and thus stops moving.

This actually extends to more of D&D physics: There is no acceleration or deceleration.

ashmanonar
2011-03-25, 12:31 PM
A friend of mine sent me a link a while back detailing an epic level character that was capable of using escape artist checks to climb into his own anus and back out his own mouth.

We're still pondering the ramifications of that one.

I really shouldn't be reading this thread at work, even if I'm at lunch. I almost burst out laughing at this.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-25, 12:42 PM
It is one grapple. You just happen to only be able to effect four other guys in it. You haven't provided RAW that says that this isn't possible, so it remains a possible interpretation, just as much as yours is. To say that it definitively isn't is Rule 0.

And...you can't join a grapple, per Rules Compendium, by grappling past the limit.

So, the size of the grapple is capped.

tonberrian
2011-03-25, 12:46 PM
And...you can't join a grapple, per Rules Compendium, by grappling past the limit.

So, the size of the grapple is capped.

Can you provide actual text, please?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-25, 12:54 PM
I'll grab it when I get home. So, probably tomorrow.

faceroll
2011-03-26, 02:02 AM
Imagine a wide, featureless plain. Two halflings, 20 feet speed, the same any way you look at them. Now they move away from each other fast as they can(no running), each turn making a double move. Only one of them goes 1 diagonal per turn, the other a straight line.
Fast forward one minute: both moved as fast as they could, had the same speed, no obstacles, but still one of them somehow moved 25 feet more. To make matters worse, his average speed ended up above his maximum speed

I count every other diagonal square as 10 feet of movement, such that movement on the diagonal is 1.5 instead of 1.0 movement. That seems to be implicit in the rules, given the radius of effects, as opposed to all the square effects (square fireballs? wtf) in 4.0.

It is physically impossible for an average strength person to reliably kill anything with a single dagger attack, even a simple toad. Max damage crit brings it to -7, simple nonmagical DC 15 Heal check stabilizes it.


A giant can't smash a simple door or table with his 50 foot spear since it is a piercing weapon

They can if they wield it as an improvised weapon, taking -4 to the attack and rolling damage based on equivalent weapon size.


In practical purposes, a buncha lowbie commoners in a line are...food. In the world that is D&D, I can't see such a system working for long.

Use fine constructs or fine undead for very fast transport of materials. You could even make a space elevator.

golentan
2011-03-26, 02:50 AM
I count every other diagonal square as 10 feet of movement, such that movement on the diagonal is 1.5 instead of 1.0 movement. That seems to be implicit in the rules, given the radius of effects, as opposed to all the square effects (square fireballs? wtf) in 4.0.

Yes. 1.5 squares was what he was talking about and results in that error he mentioned. That is wrong.

Croverus
2011-03-26, 03:34 AM
This means that spheres are blocks, logically. If circles are squares, then spheres are cubes.

So the Gelatinous cube is an expression of these physics!!! :smallamused:

byaku rai
2011-03-26, 09:13 AM
Except with these physics, cube irl = sphere. O_o Gelatinous sphere, anyone?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 09:31 AM
I'll grab it when I get home. So, probably tomorrow.

From Rules Compendium, og 61:

Multiple Grapplers
Several combatants can be in a single grapple. Up to four combatants can grapple a single opponent during a given round. Creatures that are one or more size categories smaller than you count for half, creatures that are one size category larger than you count double, and creatures two or more size categories larger than you count quadruple,
When you're grappling with multiple opponents, you choose one opponent to make an opposed check against, except when you're trying to perform an act that requires you to beat all the other grapplers.

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 09:35 AM
Still don't see how it stops grapple chains. From your perspective, the only other members of the grapple are the up to four people that are grappling you. It doesn't say that there can only be 5 grapplers in a grapple, only that you can only grapple 4 people per turn.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 09:40 AM
Still don't see how it stops grapple chains. From your perspective, the only other members of the grapple are the up to four people that are grappling you. It doesn't say that there can only be 5 grapplers in a grapple, only that you can only grapple 4 people per turn.

Everyone in the grapple with you is grappling you. They might or might not be choosing you as their target for certain actions, but plenty of things require an opposed grapple check from everyone in the grapple.

Therefore, in a grapple with you == grappling you.

Welknair
2011-03-26, 09:44 AM
The simplification of physics in D&D annoyed me to no end while I was making my Magitech system. I included rules for moving massive skyships, which really should accelerate, but instead everyone wanted just a plane old movespeed. These things can't go from 0 to 5,000 in a single round!

A little more relevant: Flying Carpet. "Equal and Opposite Force". Flying Carpets create no downward thrust, only upward.

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 09:46 AM
Everyone in the grapple with you is grappling you. They might or might not be choosing you as their target for certain actions, but plenty of things require an opposed grapple check from everyone in the grapple.

Therefore, in a grapple with you == grappling you.

The only people in a grapple with you are the four people that are grappling you. I'm not asking that you believe that this is the only possible interpretation, just acknowledgement that it is not directly disallowed.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 10:03 AM
The only people in a grapple with you are the four people that are grappling you. I'm not asking that you believe that this is the only possible interpretation, just acknowledgement that it is not directly disallowed.

There's no distinction drawn. You merely join a grapple or start a new grapple. Those are the only options. If you join a grapple, you are obviously now in that grapple.

There's no provision made for multiple, intersecting grapples. They're not in the rules. They might be possible, or even logical, but they're not included.

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 10:36 AM
There's no distinction drawn. You merely join a grapple or start a new grapple. Those are the only options. If you join a grapple, you are obviously now in that grapple.

There's no provision made for multiple, intersecting grapples. They're not in the rules. They might be possible, or even logical, but they're not included.

But they're also not explicitly denied, either. They are not excluded, which is what I'm arguing. Show me a passage that explicitly denies this, and I'll stop arguing. Your argument about escaping the grapple doesn't count, since it can just as easily be read that your check only has to beat the four people grappling you this turn.

Pentachoron
2011-03-26, 10:44 AM
But they're also not explicitly denied, either. They are not excluded, which is what I'm arguing.

There's also no line explicitly denying my fighter from casting spells.

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 10:46 AM
There's also no line explicitly denying my fighter from casting spells.

Other than the fact that he lacks the spellcasting feature, no. It's not my fault that 3.5 is poorly designed.

Pentachoron
2011-03-26, 10:47 AM
Other than the fact that he lacks the spellcasting feature, no.

Ah, but it doesn't explicitly say he lacks it.

The moral of the story is your line of argument is ridiculous.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 10:47 AM
But they're also not explicitly denied, either. They are not excluded, which is what I'm arguing. Show me a passage that explicitly denies this, and I'll stop arguing. Your argument about escaping the grapple doesn't count, since it can just as easily be read that your check only has to beat the four people grappling you this turn.

You don't get to take actions because they are "not explicitly denied".

Show me a passage that says you can do it, and you can do it. That's how the rules work.


And it doesn't actually say "the four people grappling you this turn". It says "all the other grapplers". It doesn't even say opponents or hostile grapplers. How else would you expect it to say it?

The Glyphstone
2011-03-26, 10:56 AM
The Orks With Railguns fallacy argument aside, I'm still chortling from reading the 1st page of this (with the pi=4 world), and pondering if said poster's DM is named Bloody Stupid Johnson.

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 11:07 AM
Ah, but it doesn't explicitly say he lacks it.

The moral of the story is your line of argument is ridiculous.

Actually, check page 24 of the Player's Handbook, under the heading Spells. Fighters can't cast spells. It also describes class features as "unique", meaning that other classes don't get the same ones, necessarily. Furthermore, since Fighters lack Spells Per Day and a Spell List, we have no way of determining what spells they could cast or how often they could cast them, meaning that any discussion of Fighters casting spells would be effectively meaningless, since there would be so many interpretations of it that it comes down to DM Fiat.


You don't get to take actions because they are "not explicitly denied".

Show me a passage that says you can do it, and you can do it. That's how the rules work.

And it doesn't actually say "the four people grappling you this turn". It says "all the other grapplers". It doesn't even say opponents or hostile grapplers. How else would you expect it to say it?

The rules you quoted allow for the interpretation that I am making. That's why I can ask for a passage that explicitly denies it.

As for a possible way to express it clearly, you could try the of the set of the four people who I made grapple checks against this turn unioned with a similar set for each person in any other set for your interpretation, and only that first set for mine. It's simple enough to write out, but not everybody's fluent in set theory (a shame, really).

Fax Celestis
2011-03-26, 11:27 AM
For example: a falling character does not accelerate, instead falling at a uniform 30 feet per round. Among other issues this presents, it means that gravity, instead of causing acceleration, causes velocity. Disturbing implications: any object thrown upwards at a greater speed than 30 feet per round will continue upwards forever (or at least until it hits something). Arrows don't arc, they travel in a straight line, etc.


If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. If it is too high above the ground to land, it falls straight down, descending 150 feet in the first round of falling. If this distance brings it to the ground, it takes falling damage. If the fall doesn’t bring the creature to the ground, it must spend its next turn recovering from the stall. It must succeed on a DC 20 Reflex save to recover. Otherwise it falls another 300 feet. If it hits the ground, it takes falling damage. Otherwise, it has another chance to recover on its next turn. Most creatures have a 'fly' speed of 0'.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 11:30 AM
Actually, check page 24 of the Player's Handbook, under the heading Spells. Fighters can't cast spells. It also describes class features as "unique", meaning that other classes don't get the same ones, necessarily. Furthermore, since Fighters lack Spells Per Day and a Spell List, we have no way of determining what spells they could cast or how often they could cast them, meaning that any discussion of Fighters casting spells would be effectively meaningless, since there would be so many interpretations of it that it comes down to DM Fiat.

Unique would be "one of a kind". At the time phb was published, this may be arguably correct. Perhaps. From a very limited viewpoint.

It's fairly clear that class features are not actually unique.


The rules you quoted allow for the interpretation that I am making. That's why I can ask for a passage that explicitly denies it.

As for a possible way to express it clearly, you could try the of the set of the four people who I made grapple checks against this turn unioned with a similar set for each person in any other set for your interpretation, and only that first set for mine. It's simple enough to write out, but not everybody's fluent in set theory (a shame, really).

This requires that the ability titled "joining a grapple" not actually join you to a grapple. If you join a grapple, you are then a part of that grapple. You are not a wholly separate grapple. If your grapple attempt is targetting anyone already engaged in a grapple, then you are directed to the rule "joining a grapple".

Set theory is simple, yes. However, it is not relevant. There are no overlapping sets of grapples(unless, possibly, you can find a way for a single new grappler to join two grapples at once. The confusing nature of this is...interesting). There is only the grapple you have joined, which can be of any size up to the maximum number of grapplers listed in "multiple grapplers".

Fax Celestis
2011-03-26, 11:38 AM
But they're also not explicitly denied, either. They are not excluded, which is what I'm arguing.

Elves shooting lasers out of their eyeballs aren't specifically denied either. YMMV.

Welknair
2011-03-26, 11:41 AM
Using the much-acclaimed Commoner Railgun, you can go faster than the Speed of Light, correct? So you can go back in time. What if you handed them a halfling?

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 11:45 AM
Elves shooting lasers out of their eyeballs aren't specifically denied either. YMMV.

Like I said, his passage, as it stands, allows for my interpretation. That's why I can ask for something that explicitly denies it.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 12:26 PM
Like I said, his passage, as it stands, allows for my interpretation. That's why I can ask for something that explicitly denies it.

How does it allow your interpretation?

You've not yet explained that.

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 12:48 PM
Let me spell out my position. You can tell me where it fails.


Joining a Grapple
If your target is already grappling someone else, you can use an attack to start a grapple, as above, except that the target doesn’t get an attack of opportunity against you, and your grab automatically succeeds. You still have to make a successful opposed grapple check to become part of the grapple.

Self explanatory.


If there are multiple opponents involved in the grapple, you pick one to make the opposed grapple check against.

Here's where it gets tricky. I can only choose one person to grapple against to enter into the grapple. It does not say that I am grappling with anyone else in the grapple. In fact, it doesn't even spell out that you are grappling with anybody. To understand who you are grappling against, you have to check the section on multiple grapplers.


Multiple Grapplers
Several combatants can be in a single grapple.

Both interpretations allow for this situation.


Up to four combatants can grapple a single opponent in a given round.

Now here's another tricky thing. Note that the exact text is "can grapple a single opponent in a given round" and not "can be in a grapple with a single opponent in a given round". Now, there is no explicit definition of "grapple" as a verb other than the action to start a grapple. This is rather useless for this sentence. Thus, I assume that in this sentence, the word "grapple" refers to the action of making an opposed grapple check. So, up to four combatants can make an opposed grapple check against an opponent in a given round. Now both "combatant" and "opponent" lack definitions in 3.5, so I am going to assume they mean "creature" and "creature" respectively in this sentence. Thus, the sentence comes down to:


Up to four creatures can make an opposed grapple check against a single single creature in a round.

Though this does lead to absurdity where a bunch of high initiative allies of the lone creature can make grapple checks against him, I'm unsure of criteria to put to "opponent" to prevent this, so I let it stand.

Now, the meaning of this is fairly obvious, now that I've parsed it into system terms. If you disagree for what system terms I've put this into, please tell me better ones to use.


Creatures that are one or more size categories smaller than you count for half, creatures that are one size category larger than you count double, and creatures two or more size categories larger count quadruple.

Self explanatory.


When you are grappling with multiple opponents, you choose one opponent to make an opposed check against.

The phrase "grappling with" also lacks a definition. I assign it "able to make a grapple check against (because you started a grapple with them or they started a grapple with you)". The parenthetical is probably going to be contested, because Tyndmyr believes that by starting a grapple with someone means that you are grappling with them and anyone that he is grappling. Still, take a moment to find exactly where it says that. If you are unable to find that explicitly spelled out, then it is an interpretation, just like this one, meaning it is just as valid.

Combining this with the above definitions, this sentence turns into this:


When you are able to make a grapple check against (because you started a grapple with them or they started a grapple with you) multiple creatures, you choose one creature to make a grapple check against.

This is rather simple - your grapple check only applies to one creature that you can make a grapple check against.


The exception is an attempt to escape from the grapple; to successfully escape, your grapple check must beat the check results of each opponent.

Applying my substitutions from above:


The exception is an attempt to escape from the grapple; to successfully escape, your grapple check must beat the check results of each creature.

This is pretty self explanatory. Notice by the above, you only can make grapple checks against four creatures (among those who have started a grapple with you or you have started a grapple against). Now, a peculiarity of this interpretation is that if you have some friends and a bunch of high-grapple monsters try to grapple you, you can find it easier to escape by having friends with high initiative start a grapple with you and then escape from them (having them fail their checks) rather than from the monsters, but that's only a peculiarity rather than an absolute system failure.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 01:02 PM
I strongly suggest you read the Rules Compendium grapple rules. They are both lengthier and much clearer than the SRD rules, and RC is the primary source for such things.

You're relying on inconsistent phrasing that exists pretty much entirely because the SRD is an abbreviated source.

Dvandemon
2011-03-26, 01:07 PM
With an epic-level Escape Artist check, a character can cram their head - and the rest of their body - through a space smaller than their head.

Probably a side-effect of all the bizarre geometry.

Someone please make a list of all the things you can do with Epic skill checks :smallbiggrin:
The simplification of physics in D&D annoyed me to no end while I was making my Magitech system. I included rules for moving massive skyships, which really should accelerate, but instead everyone wanted just a plane old movespeed. These things can't go from 0 to 5,000 in a single round!

A little more relevant: Flying Carpet. "Equal and Opposite Force". Flying Carpets create no downward thrust, only upward.

To the first one, my friend mentioned a similar situation where they had skyship which was sometimes used as a ram :smallamused: To the second, obviously the downward thrust is magically redirected upwards :smalltongue:
The Orks With Railguns fallacy argument aside, I'm still chortling from reading the 1st page of this (with the pi=4 world), and pondering if said poster's DM is named Bloody Stupid Johnson.

It couldn't be, pi=3 is much more tidy :smallwink:

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 01:10 PM
I don't have the Rules Compendium. However, I do have access to the errata and the Player's Handbook. Is there something in the Rules Compendium that explicitly contradicts what I've said? What you've already posted does not.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 01:18 PM
I don't have the Rules Compendium. However, I do have access to the errata and the Player's Handbook. Is there something in the Rules Compendium that explicitly contradicts what I've said? What you've already posted does not.

It doesn't explicitly say that your interpretation is invalid. However, it the larger context of what's written, it's clear that your interpretation is not a reasonable one.

RC is a solid book. Plenty of good things listed there not listed elsewhere. So far as I know, swift action wands are legal solely due to RC.

tonberrian
2011-03-26, 01:21 PM
It doesn't explicitly say that your interpretation is invalid. However, it the larger context of what's written, it's clear that your interpretation is not a reasonable one.

RC is a solid book. Plenty of good things listed there not listed elsewhere. So far as I know, swift action wands are legal solely due to RC.

I was never arguing that it was reasonable. RAW is not reasonable. Nothing that allows an infinite amount of stuff in one space is reasonable.

I just find it amusing. Isn't that what this thread is about? :smallbiggrin:

potatocubed
2011-03-26, 01:23 PM
Show me a passage that says you can do it, and you can do it. That's how the rules work.

Technically that's not how the rules work - there are rules for starvation but not eating, rules for drowning but not ceasing to drown, usw. So you can do some things that the rules do not specifically forbid you from doing (eat, breathe) but RAI not all things that the rules do not specifically forbid you from doing (eat a horse in one bite, breathe fire).

Tyndmyr
2011-03-26, 01:24 PM
I was never arguing that it was reasonable. RAW is not reasonable. Nothing that allows an infinite amount of stuff in one space is reasonable.

I just find it amusing. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, it's a coupla pages long, am I'm just too lazy to type it out. I'll admit, the idea of multiple grappels overlapping probably simulates reality better...it just doesn't match the way everything is described.

The idea of having a hard upper limit on a grapple does bring up equally amusing RAW ideas. Like...since you can cast a spell while grappled, a caster could gain immunity from grappling by having enough people grappled to him at all times that are really, really terrible at grappling.

There are rules for ceasing to drown. They are in stormwrack. Starvation covers neatly what happens without food and water. If you wish to get more into the water portion, you've got Sandstorm.

Firechanter
2011-03-26, 08:32 PM
Alright, how many catgirls is this worth:


Isn't it 200 feet per round (based on memory, not books)?

On a plane(t) with earthlike gravity and air pressure, free fall in the first full round (6 seconds) should cover 700 feet (according to real-world physics). At that point you will have reached roughly 60m/s falling speed, which iirc is roughly the maximum you get due to air resistance. So in each subsequent round, assuming there is plenty of altitude, you fall another 360m ~ 1200 feet.

As you can see, falling is a thing that goes really quick. That's why Feather Fall can be cast at any time even when it's not your turn -- otherwise it would be utterly pointless.

How much will it hurt? At that speed (60m/s), each kg of your mass has a kinetic energy of 1.800J, which is the same ballpark as a rifle bullet -- of course it's not directly comparable, but you know that this energy can kill you already if applied highly concentrated. But you don't weigh 1kg, you weigh maybe 70kg. So when you hit the ground, you go splortch, suffering about the same energy transfer as if you were hit by 70 rifle rounds.

Iirc the D&D rule for falling damage is 1d6 per 10', but this of course completely ignores acceleration. A high-level, very robust type might actually survive 70d6 falling damage. But if you adjust the formula to take the increasing velocity into account, that number should be much higher.

Let's assume (and it's really just an assumption) that the 1d6/10' is benchmarked on a one-second fall, as average for typical falling distances. After a one second you have fallen about 10 metres (33') and have a velocity of roughly 10m/s. Each kg of your mass has a kinetic energy of _25_ Joules. Since you have fallen a bit over 30 feet, you take 3d6 falling damage. No big deal.
Compare: twenty-five --- one thousand eight hundred. That's factor 70. So after falling 700 feet in one full round, ground impact should cause not 70d6 but _210d6_, or about 700 hit points.
Enough to kill a dragon, and certainly enough to make sure a humanoid is turned into chunky salsa without bothering to roll damage.

edit: The good news is that falling damage doesn't increase after the first round.

byaku rai
2011-03-26, 10:20 PM
The Orks With Railguns fallacy argument aside, I'm still chortling from reading the 1st page of this (with the pi=4 world), and pondering if said poster's DM is named Bloody Stupid Johnson.

Reference deeply appreciated, but no. He prefers to just go by God (explains a lot, doesn't it?).

EDIT: @^^ That is worth lots and lots of catgirls. Shame on you. Besides, we've already established that acceleration doesn't really exist in D&D, except in very specific cases.

ryu
2011-03-26, 10:41 PM
What happens if I question the physics of cat girls spontaneously dying every time I question physics in a world that doesn't have any catgirls at all thus creating an infinite paradox of questions about physics being asked and the catgirls that weren't around to die somehow dieing?

How can we resolve the horrible sentence structure I just created with dnd physics?

How many catgirls die do to physics as I ask these three questions?

Finally do questions I don't convey but still think about count? What if a psion is involved?

faceroll
2011-03-27, 03:41 AM
Using the much-acclaimed Commoner Railgun, you can go faster than the Speed of Light, correct? So you can go back in time. What if you handed them a halfling?

No, you can just travel arbitrary distances very quickly. There are no rules that cover what derives from that, so there's no time travel, rail guns, etc. It's pretty clear what happens under RAW. Anything else is a house rule.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-27, 03:55 AM
Not even switching back and forth between game physics and real physics, which is cheating if you ask me, using Relativity and Greater Teleport could be used for Time Travel. (http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html)

byaku rai
2011-03-27, 03:50 PM
Of course, this assumes that there is, in fact, a set speed of light.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-27, 04:15 PM
Of course, this assumes that there is, in fact, a set speed of light.

Like I said, using Relativity and Greater Teleport.

byaku rai
2011-03-27, 04:26 PM
Also, the assumption that the speed of light is the baseline for most physical properties may not be valid here. Plus we've already established that magic defies natural laws; there's really no reason to go further into that particular field unless there's a particularly nonsensical effect which can't just be waved away via "It's magic, deal with it."

golentan
2011-03-27, 04:44 PM
Yeah... Unless we can find rules implying the need for something else (like my lunatic thought experiment) I think it's best to assume DnD is a purely newtonian universe. No relativity, general or special. No quantum physics. No anti-matter (@_@ I'm looking at you anti-osmium nuke cheese), or dark matter, or... Yeah. If you have to invoke real world physics discovered after the turn of the 20th century to explain something's effect, I think I can safely say you are being obnoxious.

And there's so many delicious newtonian violations anyway. Por ejemplo, strength rules. It is possible, nay easy, to create a character capable of picking up sufficient weight to spike them through the ground and overcome the compression resistance of concrete or steel without being inconvenienced by encumbrance, yet these supernaturally strong muscle and bone tissues are just as susceptible to bludgeoning damage (thus not even changing the applicable form of force resistance) as any other character's.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-27, 04:57 PM
Also, the assumption that the speed of light is the baseline for most physical properties may not be valid here. Plus we've already established that magic defies natural laws; there's really no reason to go further into that particular field unless there's a particularly nonsensical effect which can't just be waved away via "It's magic, deal with it."
Yes, but it's also fun if you don't make that assumption. Besuides, magic doesn't defy the laws of physics, it IS the laws of physics, just ones that are very different from ours. In one game what you say may be true, but in another it might not. In a world like that recent thread/PbP game about if "most of D&D was real", these things can be assumed since your talking about the interaction of D&D and physics as we know it. A more fantastic universe may not allow it.


Yeah... Unless we can find rules implying the need for something else (like my lunatic thought experiment) I think it's best to assume DnD is a purely newtonian universe. No relativity, general or special. No quantum physics. No anti-matter (@_@ I'm looking at you anti-osmium nuke cheese), or dark matter, or... Yeah. If you have to invoke real world physics discovered after the turn of the 20th century to explain something's effect, I think I can safely say you are being obnoxious.
You don't even have to pull out the anti-osmium. If you allow isotopes, major creation can create nuclear weapons, and it is far easier to hold a chip of Uranium 235 then a chip of antimatter, removing the rules shenanigans of claiming that since there is no listed price for osmium, let alone anti-osmium, you can use eschew materials.
Now that's cheating.
Besides, Newtonian physics has it's own quirks that could be abused by the clever.

golentan
2011-03-27, 05:02 PM
And nuclear weapons are... OH! 1940s (earlier for theory, but still post 1900), putting them outside the window where I feel things have a legitimate claim to be in DnD without RAW support. :smallmad:

And sure Newtonian physics has exploits. But they tend not to be "kill everything on the prime material all at once" IIRC, unless you hit really speed levels.

lesser_minion
2011-03-27, 05:04 PM
Meh, it's implied that teleportation is not instantaneous, and a 1 second travel time would not require any change to its depiction in the rules. From the surface of a typical campaign world, there is unlikely to be anything whatsoever of interest more than 30,000 km away from you.

There's no actual need for teleportation to exceed the speed of light, or even reach it.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-27, 05:19 PM
Meh, it's implied that teleportation is not instantaneous, and a 1 second travel time would not require any change to its depiction in the rules. From the surface of a typical campaign world, there is unlikely to be anything whatsoever of interest more than 30,000 km away from you.

There's no actual need for teleportation to exceed the speed of light, or even reach it.
Greater teleport has a greater range then that, it works on anywhere in the same plane. So long as your target, like say the Moon, is more then one light second away, you are exceeding the speed of light. Combine with a little scry for targets farther afield, and you can exceed it by a huge degree.
Now what is the ACF percentage on a spacesuit?:smalltongue:

And nuclear weapons are... OH! 1940s (earlier for theory, but still post 1900), putting them outside the window where I feel things have a legitimate claim to be in DnD without RAW support.
Well, that's how you feel. I enjoy magitech that uses thing that exist rather then just being a pile of handwavium and applied phlebotinum, as long as it doesn't abuse the rules as rules.


And sure Newtonian physics has exploits. But they tend not to be "kill everything on the prime material all at once" IIRC, unless you hit really speed levels.
"Give me a lever long enough and I shall move the world" Give me a speed high enough and I can crack a planet.:smalltongue:

byaku rai
2011-03-27, 06:49 PM
Time travel is a terrible, terrible thing, best to be left alone for all concerned. Still, it could lead to an interesting encounter/campaign: The PCs meet a group quite like them, but slightly different and more powerful, which immediately tries to kill them. Blah happens, it turns out that the other group is actually them from the future, coming back to stop them from ever discovering time travel (paradoxes schmaradoxes) blah blah blah, the players win, then do discover time travel and set off on their own journey to kill their past selves and prevent it, etc. @_@ Lots of time travel-induced headaches, and total destruction of anything resembling linear storytelling.

... Yeah. As I said, BAD IDEA, LEAVE IT ALONE.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-27, 06:58 PM
Eh, a little many-worlds theory of time travel clears most of those up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Time_travel). Unfortunatly, that makes it useless because you don't actually change anything for your universe. Still, it might be fun to try as part of the plot.
Oh and for the people who say they don't want no relativity in their game, the reason gold is yellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry#Color_of_gold_and_c aesium) is because of relativity. So unless you have another explanation, having gold as we know it in your universe implies some form of relativity.

golentan
2011-03-28, 12:07 AM
Or alternate chemistry. Why must people try to shoehorn things arbitrarily close to our world in ways that will only ever come up if the issue is forced? Seriously. In (many) dnd worlds the ground is infinitely deep and uncurved, yet we don't try to model the gravitic implications of an underdark (much less what that implies about the sun) because that would be INSANE!

Eldan
2011-03-28, 02:34 AM
I've mentioned it before, I think I'll mention it again: my universe runs on a bit of Newtonian, a bit of alchemy, a bit of Greek and a lot of general Enlightenment era ideas.
There are four elemental planes. That's about as much of a fact of D&D as there can be, at least in most campaign settings. There are no planes of Anti-fire &c. I've never seen rules of radioactivity either: the quasielemental plane of radiance doesn't have any, so why should there be anywhere else. There are literal crystal spheres around worlds. Phlogiston is a fact, as is the aether.

So, I think relativistic and quantum physics can safely be defenestrated.

DwarfFighter
2011-03-28, 04:03 AM
Gold is actually dense, not heavy.

A kilogram of gold and a kilogram of copper are the same weight, but a liter of gold and a liter of copper are not.

This thread seems a bit heavy to me.

Answers for most of the weird stuff the rules allow for can best be answered with the follow questions.


"Is it magic?"
"Where is the GM?"

Ravens_cry
2011-03-28, 04:14 AM
Or alternate chemistry. Why must people try to shoehorn things arbitrarily close to our world in ways that will only ever come up if the issue is forced? Seriously. In (many) dnd worlds the ground is infinitely deep and uncurved, yet we don't try to model the gravitic implications of an underdark (much less what that implies about the sun) because that would be INSANE!
Actually, on several official settings, the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerth) is round. (http://www.spelljammer.org/worlds/Realmspace/Toril.html)

potatocubed
2011-03-28, 05:34 AM
This seems like a good point to mention that in Glorantha (a RuneQuest setting) the world is explicitly called out as functioning because of magic - if things work according to what we understand as physics, it's strictly a coincidence.

I believe that Glorantha is also a cube floating in an endless sea, but I could be wrong about that.

byaku rai
2011-03-28, 08:46 AM
This thread seems a bit heavy to me.

Answers for most of the weird stuff the rules allow for can best be answered with the follow questions.


"Is it magic?"
"Where is the GM?"


This is a thread for random complaining/physics nerding. Part of the point of this thread is to figure out why things happen the way they do without resorting to "STFU, it's magic!"

The Big Dice
2011-03-28, 12:36 PM
This is a thread for random complaining/physics nerding. Part of the point of this thread is to figure out why things happen the way they do without resorting to "STFU, it's magic!"

Things happen the way they do in D&D because, unlike GURPS, there isn't a vocal and knowledgeable section of the fan community that is actively contributing ways the game can model real life more accurately.

SlyGuyMcFly
2011-03-28, 01:53 PM
Or alternate chemistry. Why must people try to shoehorn things arbitrarily close to our world in ways that will only ever come up if the issue is forced? Seriously. In (many) dnd worlds the ground is infinitely deep and uncurved, yet we don't try to model the gravitic implications of an underdark (much less what that implies about the sun) because that would be INSANE!

Given that in D&D the Classical Elements are empirical fact, I tend to disregard anything involving the modern Elements (of Periodic fame).

This essay (http://mimir.net/essays/planarphysics.html) on the atomic theory of the (classical) elements tickles my chemist fancy in all the right ways, and would be the basis for any campaign I ran (in the unlikely event that I had to explain such things, anyway).

Firechanter
2011-03-28, 02:32 PM
Duh. The classical elements resemble not elements but the four states of matter: solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma. It's SO obvious!

MostlyAcumen
2011-03-28, 03:29 PM
It's a reference to a lien I've seen other places (usually online anime fandom) - every time you question the logic of something, a catgirl dies. Along the lines of not believing in faeries killing them, I believe.Here's the actual backstory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_time_you_masturbate..._God_kills_a_kitten)fo r what it's worth. It began with kittens, not catgirls.

golentan
2011-03-28, 04:23 PM
Duh. The classical elements resemble not elements but the four states of matter: solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma. It's SO obvious!

Yeah... Remind me never to get drunk when hanging out in primitive cultures again. I'm 90% sure I know what happened the night that inspired the majority of classical greek science and alchemical theory, and 10% too blitzed to be sure.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-28, 04:34 PM
Duh. The classical elements resemble not elements but the four states of matter: solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma. It's SO obvious!
Indeed, that's how I always thought of it. Of course, I might change some of the planes a bit. The Elemental plane of Fire isn't seas of lava, it's a roiling mass of plasma, like the photosphere. What we call the Elemental Plane of Fire is a demi-elemental plane of Earth and Fire.

byaku rai
2011-03-28, 04:35 PM
It should go without saying that D&D uses at the very least an altered version of the natural sciences, at worst completely skewed versions. Chemistry is waved away via the Craft: Alchemy skill (not all that great, unlike actual chemistry which can lead to explosions and liquid nitrogen and all sorts of other fun), physics is simplified to an Int: 3 version, and the rest are waved away with Knowledge skills (fairly useless ones at that).

Of course, that helps streamline gameplay, since it's easier to play a game where arrows fly completely straight until their maximum range and flesh and bone are supernaturally uncompressible. But the commoner railgun and similar feats of physical stupidity are taking it a bit too far.

Oh well, it's all fun and games until you cause a universe-destroying quantum event. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry
2011-03-28, 04:54 PM
Commoner railgun does take it too far because I feel it is abusing the rules as rules, rather then understanding them as simplification and generalizations that allow us to play a world without rulebooks that wouldn't fit on pick-up trucks. I use that phrase a lot, "abusing the rules as rules". Well, the most obvious example is drowning someone to heal them because by RAW, drowning, even if your hit points are lower then that, it resets them to 0. It's not terribly abusive in itself, but I would never allow it or its ilk in my game. On the other hand, dropping really heavy weights on something from way high above so it does a lot of damage? Sure, I would allow that. Why? Because gravity does that. A world with gravity that even slightly resembles our own would have it work like that. Aiming is a bit tricky, but still doable. It's playing a world, using in-universe solutions.

byaku rai
2011-03-28, 05:31 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. :smallsmile:

Witty Username
2011-03-28, 07:41 PM
"I shot at the ground and rolled a natural 1"
"your arrow flies strait upward ... and doesn't come back down"

That enough of a brain wrack.

Lord Raziere
2011-03-28, 07:49 PM
"I shot at the ground and rolled a natural 1"
"your arrow flies strait upward ... and doesn't come back down"

That enough of a brain wrack.

when you aim to fail......the worst possible luck is to succeed. :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry
2011-03-28, 07:51 PM
"I shot at the ground and rolled a natural 1"
"your arrow flies strait upward ... and doesn't come back down"

That enough of a brain wrack.
Simple, it hits the ground, but not at whatever AC 5 square (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#thunderstone) on the ground you are aiming at.

Venom3053000
2011-03-28, 08:15 PM
all those poor dead catgirls, how can you do this to them :smallfrown:

Ravens_cry
2011-03-28, 08:22 PM
all those poor dead catgirls, how can you do this to them :smallfrown:
Well, every time a fanboy or girl squees, a catgirl is born. If we do not cull the herd, overpopulation will lead to starvation as well as potentially damaging fragile ecosystems.
:smallamused:

Tiki Snakes
2011-03-28, 10:19 PM
Simple, it hits the ground, but not at whatever AC 5 square (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#thunderstone) on the ground you are aiming at.

Surely, rather, it bounces off harmlessly instead?

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 03:46 AM
Surely, rather, it bounces off harmlessly instead?
That's another interpretation, and I like it as well.:smallsmile:

Eldan
2011-03-29, 03:48 AM
Simple, it hits the ground, but not at whatever AC 5 square (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#thunderstone) on the ground you are aiming at.

So, you can't fly by falling, but missing the ground?

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 03:53 AM
So, you can't fly by falling, but missing the ground?
Not unless someone makes Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: The Role Playing Game.:smallbiggrin:

Eldan
2011-03-29, 03:56 AM
Someone should.

Though I think FATE should handle that quite well.

absolmorph
2011-03-29, 04:00 AM
I was never arguing that it was reasonable. RAW is not reasonable. Nothing that allows an infinite amount of stuff in one space is reasonable.

I just find it amusing. Isn't that what this thread is about? :smallbiggrin:
No, this thread is about mass murder.


This seems like a good point to mention that in Glorantha (a RuneQuest setting) the world is explicitly called out as functioning because of magic - if things work according to what we understand as physics, it's strictly a coincidence.

I believe that Glorantha is also a cube floating in an endless sea, but I could be wrong about that.
This is mostly correct, though I think it was just a cube in a void.

Also: Permanency + Sunlight + photovoltaic cells = infinite energy.

And how has ring gate abuse not been mentioned?

Actually, what happens if you face two connected ring gates toward each other, stick a metal beam through and weld the ends together, then pull apart the ring gates?

Eldan
2011-03-29, 04:11 AM
The beam transforms into a new inevitable.

Though ring gates are generally fun anyway. You can build endless waterfalls to produce a perpetuum mobile.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 04:16 AM
Infinite energy is the easiest trick in D&D and I bet I can do it for cheaper. Decanter of endless of endless +water wheel/turbine or Skeletons + Treadwheel. Plus, unlike a photovoltaic cell, it's in a form that a medieval tech society can use.

2xMachina
2011-03-29, 04:31 AM
The turn based thing makes time compression possible.

A full round action takes 6 seconds.
Turns are exclusive, in that no 2 person can act at the same time.

Thus, in effect, while only 6 seconds has passed somewhere else, during combat, more time has passed. (A takes 6 seconds to act, then B does. 12 seconds passed for them, and anyone interacting with them.)

hewhosaysfish
2011-03-29, 06:52 AM
So, you can't fly by falling, but missing the ground?

Only if the ground is a single 5' square. And that would be a very strange campaign setting.

Eldan
2011-03-29, 06:53 AM
Someone homebrew that world, please :smalltongue:

The Big Dice
2011-03-29, 07:06 AM
Infinite energy is the easiest trick in D&D and I bet I can do it for cheaper. Decanter of endless of endless +water wheel/turbine or Skeletons + Treadwheel. Plus, unlike a photovoltaic cell, it's in a form that a medieval tech society can use.

What do you do with that electricity? Assuming your D&D people know about spinning a magnet inside a coil of wire. Saying "turbine" is quite easy, but actually making the technological and conceptual leap from water wheel to power station is quite a feat.

Same with a photovoltaic cell. Heck, a Votaic Pile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaic_pile) was a novelty with no application beyond making pretty sparks for decades. And nobody has much of an idea what the Baghdad Battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_battery) was really for.

Eldan
2011-03-29, 07:14 AM
You don't need to use it as electricity. A pump or a mill that runs forever without further input is quite useful too, especially in a place without ready access to wind or flowing water.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-29, 07:40 AM
Also: Permanency + Sunlight + photovoltaic cells = infinite energy.

Eh, this requires photovoltaic cells. Not a guarantee.

On the other hand, a decanter of endless x is pretty much infinite energy in a can.


And how has ring gate abuse not been mentioned?

Actually, what happens if you face two connected ring gates toward each other, stick a metal beam through and weld the ends together, then pull apart the ring gates?

The universe stretches.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 07:45 AM
What do you do with that electricity? Assuming your D&D people know about spinning a magnet inside a coil of wire. Saying "turbine" is quite easy, but actually making the technological and conceptual leap from water wheel to power station is quite a feat.

Same with a photovoltaic cell. Heck, a Votaic Pile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaic_pile) was a novelty with no application beyond making pretty sparks for decades. And nobody has much of an idea what the Baghdad Battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_battery) was really for.
As Eldan said, you don't need to use it for electricity.
I even mentioned this in the post you quoted that the energy was "in a form that a medieval tech society can use."
Grinding grain, pressing olives, pumping water, hammermills, saw mills, breaking up corned gun powder, hammering for forging, tread wheel cranes, there are all sorts of uses medieval society would have for free energy. The early industrial revolution was centred around water mills, but it really kicked off with steam engines that could be used anywhere, just like the infinite waterwheel.

Eldan
2011-03-29, 07:51 AM
Imagine if you could put them on a ship. Infinite bilge pump/motor without the fire hazards of a steam engine.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 07:57 AM
Imagine if you could put them on a ship. Infinite bilge pump/motor without the fire hazards of a steam engine.

Nothing says you can't.:smallbiggrin:
Another idea, perfect for my undead civilisation, is an skeleton horse, or other animal, paddle boat. (http://www.shipwreckworld.com/articles/horse-powered-ferry-boat-discovered-in-lake-champlain)

Tyndmyr
2011-03-29, 08:04 AM
Imagine if you could put them on a ship. Infinite bilge pump/motor without the fire hazards of a steam engine.

Ship, hell. Hover-ship. Travel atop a fountain of water blasting downward. Bad for wots underneath you, sure...but some might consider this a bonus.

byaku rai
2011-03-29, 08:04 AM
Only if the ground is a single 5' square. And that would be a very strange campaign setting.

Antworld! everyone plays as an ant, doing such exciting deeds as carrying stuff 50 times their own weight and killing monsters hundreds of times their size!

... Is it just me, or does that sound exactly the same as regular D&D? Minus the whole "entire campaign within a single 5-foot square" thing...

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 08:08 AM
Eh, when ants kill things much larger then them, they generally do it in numbers that would make even the most hardened dice fiend blanch at trying to model that in d20. Also, ants are great at the Colossus Climb, while in D&D that grants no advantage.

Eldan
2011-03-29, 08:11 AM
Players are swarms, then.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-29, 08:16 AM
yeah, but swarms take up a 10ft-10ft. minimum area, you'd need a bigger campaign world.

Eldan
2011-03-29, 08:31 AM
Ah. Fair enough.

Welknair
2011-03-29, 09:05 AM
Perhaps your enemies would be the dreaded Termite Hoardes?

Also, I think I have a friend who started making a system along these lines back when Tabletop RPGs first came out. I wonder if he still has any of his old designs...

I think we also might have gotten a little off topic. (Unless we're counting the fact that there is no such thing as a 5X5 swarm as a physics glitch)

Necroticplague
2011-03-29, 09:21 AM
Oh, one swarm related glitch I found was that a single swarm hiveminding between all its members would be capable of killing gods on its own.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 09:42 AM
Which is why the game has swarms instead of treating them as individual creatures, given the minimum damage a creature can do, barring DR, is one.

The Big Dice
2011-03-29, 01:00 PM
As Eldan said, you don't need to use it for electricity.
I even mentioned this in the post you quoted that the energy was "in a form that a medieval tech society can use."
Grinding grain, pressing olives, pumping water, hammermills, saw mills, breaking up corned gun powder, hammering for forging, tread wheel cranes, there are all sorts of uses medieval society would have for free energy. The early industrial revolution was centred around water mills, but it really kicked off with steam engines that could be used anywhere, just like the infinite waterwheel.

The word "turbine" was used. And I can't think of anything else other than generating electricity that involves turbines.

And quite frankly, windmills and water wheels are already sources of free energy. Why does a medieval society need more? Other than to mimic things that we have now, obviously.

Steam engines did indeed energise the industrial revolution. But they were developed in order to power pumps to clear water that was building up in mines. The only problem is, D&D doesn't seem to have an aquifer or any other issues with ground water. For evidence, look no further than the Underdark.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-29, 01:27 PM
The word "turbine" was used. And I can't think of anything else other than generating electricity that involves turbines.

And quite frankly, windmills and water wheels are already sources of free energy. Why does a medieval society need more? Other than to mimic things that we have now, obviously.

They are sources of energy. Definitely not sources of free energy.

And there is never an upper limit on energy desired. More is essentially always better.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-29, 02:08 PM
The word "turbine" was used. And I can't think of anything else other than generating electricity that involves turbines.

A turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine) in this case is a more efficient waterwheel, enclosed so some of the energy that would be lost from the water been ejected goes toward pushing the blades forward because it is enclosed. As it stands, it is now mechanical energy. We use that mechanical energy to turn a generator, converting it to electrical energy, but a medieval society has plenty of uses for mechanical energy, some of which have already been outlined.



And quite frankly, windmills and water wheels are already sources of free energy. Why does a medieval society need more? Other than to mimic things that we have now, obviously.

Steam engines did indeed energise the industrial revolution. But they were developed in order to power pumps to clear water that was building up in mines. The only problem is, D&D doesn't seem to have an aquifer or any other issues with ground water. For evidence, look no further than the Underdark.
Why is this useful even if existing energy demands are met? Because it can be used anywhere. Waterwheels are limited to rivers. Windmills are tied to the wind, animals need feeding, this works anywhere you want power.
Sure, steam engines started in coal mines, but that was because they needed vast quantities of coal and the pumping needs.
But with this, someone could start,for example, a gristmill and be able to build it much closer to the farms instead of right near the river or it can run even when the wind doesn't blow and doesn't need feeding like oxen in a treadwheel. This ups their profits and allows them to charge lower prices. Result? They start edging out there competitors who rely on more traditional sources of energy.

absolmorph
2011-03-29, 02:30 PM
Eh, this requires photovoltaic cells. Not a guarantee.

On the other hand, a decanter of endless x is pretty much infinite energy in a can.



The universe stretches.
I just created an infinite amount of matter :smallamused:
Or ruined the universe.
Or both.

byaku rai
2011-03-29, 08:05 PM
I just created an infinite amount of matter :smallamused:
Or ruined the universe.
Or both.

From an absolute standpoint, the universe might stretch. However, from a subjective standpoint like the character's, even if it does, they wouldn't notice. They'd just feel like the rings didn't come apart at all.

The Big Dice
2011-03-30, 04:31 AM
Why is this useful even if existing energy demands are met? Because it can be used anywhere. Waterwheels are limited to rivers. Windmills are tied to the wind, animals need feeding, this works anywhere you want power.

The problem is, you're trying to create demand. And also to steal business and monopolies from existing organisations. And who is going to want their monopoly broken? It's not like there's a Monopolies and Mergers Commission to get involved. And the rulers of the land aren't going to care as long as the taxes get paid. And even if they do get involved, they're going to side with the people who can lobby the best.

And even if you can use a Decanter of Endless Water like that, where does the water it creates go? You're adding to the total amount of water on the planet. Eventually, especially if this becomes a popular scheme, the water level is going to change. And the Aboleths are going to be ever so happy.

Eldan
2011-03-30, 04:34 AM
I'll totally have to make a campaign around this.

Aboleths are secretly pushing Decanter-powered supertechnology in an attempt to take over the planet.

2xMachina
2011-03-30, 05:00 AM
Use Decanter of Endless Air? Excess air will automatically get out of the atmosphere, causing no real problems. The entire vacuum of space can take a lot of air before there's any real change.

potatocubed
2011-03-30, 05:57 AM
On the opposite end, remember that spheres of annihilation also exist, reducing the total amount of matter in the universe at the same time. Even stationary ones are consuming air when breezes blow across them.

(For double-plus fun, park one at the bottom of an ocean and watch it drain away.)

The Big Dice
2011-03-30, 06:33 AM
Use Decanter of Endless Air? Excess air will automatically get out of the atmosphere, causing no real problems. The entire vacuum of space can take a lot of air before there's any real change.

Or will it add to the density of the air? Leading to a runaway greenhouse effect, similar to that seen on the Earth sized planet Venus. Which is al ovely destination, with surface temperatures high enough to melt lead and sulphuric acid strong enough to strip paint in seconds being the norm.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-30, 07:38 AM
The problem is, you're trying to create demand. And also to steal business and monopolies from existing organisations. And who is going to want their monopoly broken? It's not like there's a Monopolies and Mergers Commission to get involved. And the rulers of the land aren't going to care as long as the taxes get paid. And even if they do get involved, they're going to side with the people who can lobby the best.

If you offer a superior product at a cheaper price, all other things been equal, people are going to prefer your product. It doesn't have to be a new business, it could be someone who already runs a saw mill, grist mill, hammer mill et cetera, converting over because it allows them an edge over their competitors. And this is assuming that all demand is met, which is unlikely. Farmers would probably prefer a grist mill that was closer to their farm, loggers would prefer a saw mill that can be brought to them rather then the other way around.


And even if you can use a Decanter of Endless Water like that, where does the water it creates go? You're adding to the total amount of water on the planet. Eventually, especially if this becomes a popular scheme, the water level is going to change. And the Aboleths are going to be ever so happy.
Yes, that is a problem. Luckily, others have mentioned solutions. And if you, instead of decanters of any sort, you use unintelligent undead as eternal workers, you still have free energy.
In D&D, the laws of thermodynamics are the least of the things you can break.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-30, 07:45 AM
The problem is, you're trying to create demand. And also to steal business and monopolies from existing organisations. And who is going to want their monopoly broken? It's not like there's a Monopolies and Mergers Commission to get involved. And the rulers of the land aren't going to care as long as the taxes get paid. And even if they do get involved, they're going to side with the people who can lobby the best.

The people that can create water in the middle of the desert in ridiculous quantities and ALSO use that water to do things like grind grain probably have the advantage over people that do not. Tech always provides an advantage. Magic is no different.


And even if you can use a Decanter of Endless Water like that, where does the water it creates go? You're adding to the total amount of water on the planet. Eventually, especially if this becomes a popular scheme, the water level is going to change. And the Aboleths are going to be ever so happy.

Well, you'll have to balance Decanter of Endless Water use with Decanter of Endless Sand. More land, more water.

Sure, eventually old buildings will become submerged ruins and buried dungeons that get infested with monsters, but we'll work that into the game somehow.

2xMachina
2011-03-30, 07:49 AM
Maybe try to open a gate to elemental plane of water to get rid of excess water.

Hmm... Perma Wall of Fire Boiler, with the steam leading of to Para-elemental plane of steam (air/water)?

Ravens_cry
2011-03-30, 07:57 AM
Would work, those planes are ostensibly infinite, and adding infinite to infinite is still infinite. You also use said wall of fire for free energy, but a steam engine would take more expertise, while water wheels and primitive turbines have been in use since Roman times at least.

Eldan
2011-03-30, 08:09 AM
Well, steam engines have been known to the Egyptians and Greeks, at the very least.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-30, 08:21 AM
Well, steam engines have been known to the Egyptians and Greeks, at the very least.
The Hero engine was a nice toy, but what people needed was high torque power.

Eldan
2011-03-30, 08:24 AM
There was that one example of an egyptian temple that had automatic doors. But I'm not sure if it was powered hydraulically or by steam power.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-30, 08:28 AM
There was that one example of an egyptian temple that had automatic doors. But I'm not sure if it was powered hydraulically or by steam power.
It was sort of a steam engine (http://metronature.blogspot.com/2010/03/ancient-temple-door-opener.html), but it wouldn't be practical for much else.

Qwertystop
2011-03-30, 09:40 AM
Make a waterwheel, put a Decanter at one end and a Sphere of Annihilation at the other. Open an Air decanter at low speed for a few minutes once a week to make up for the air loss.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-30, 09:50 AM
Or get a bag of devouring (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#bagofDevouring) and convince that you will feed it as much as it wants. Probably cheaper then a sphere of annihilation.

TheMinxTail
2011-04-05, 12:40 PM
Wet is a concept that exists in chemistry, or something similar to wetness, at least. Basically, it determines how a liquid interacts with a solid surface (mercury, for example, cannot exactly make things "wet").

Studying Physics and Chemistry at the University confirmed my idea that, ultimately, everything breaks down to Physics. So I say, wetness is something that exists in Physics.

DrWeird
2011-04-05, 02:07 PM
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there is a natural lack of regulation in free actions with respect towards movement.

This means, in more hilarious terms, two people can pick each other up into infinity, achieving perfectly upward flight.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-05, 02:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that picking someone up isn't a free action.

Necroticplague
2011-04-05, 02:27 PM
El es corecto, lifting somebody over your head requires either a move action (if you treat them as an object) or a full-round action(using fling ally). Although, you could use readied action to set up a similar chain.

Eldan
2011-04-05, 02:53 PM
IIRC, psionics has a trick for infinite actions per turn (involving several people, affinity fields and bestow power, amongst other things). With that, could people lift each other up? Nevermind that flying would be easier.

Silverlich
2011-04-18, 05:39 PM
I still maintain that in D&D, Berkeley's theories are objective fact and concepts and perception are incredibly powerful. A few arguments in support of my theory:

IIRC, if you theoretically swing a rope with a iron ball at the end into a sphere of annihilation, the ball is destroyed, and most of the rope (the part that did not touch the sphere is not). However, if you slap a sphere of annihilation, you are entirely destroyed. This suggests that in some way, living beings, (in addition to undead, constructs, etc.) are perceived differently by the laws of the universe than objects.

Additionally: many, many qualities, such as light, health, difficulty, location, and time seem to be quantized at a macro level. This can be resolved in many ways, but the easiest one is assuming that this is again based on perception.

Another argument. Good and evil are objective concepts.

Finally: Levels and classes are utterly arbitrary...unless discussed as ideas.

randomhero00
2011-04-18, 05:43 PM
See there are not paradoxes in DnD. It is up to you to fill in everything else the starter/book doesn't fill in. and even then its just a suggestion.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-18, 07:19 PM
I still maintain that in D&D, Berkeley's theories are objective fact and concepts and perception are incredibly powerful. A few arguments in support of my theory:

IIRC, if you theoretically swing a rope with a iron ball at the end into a sphere of annihilation, the ball is destroyed, and most of the rope (the part that did not touch the sphere is not). However, if you slap a sphere of annihilation, you are entirely destroyed. This suggests that in some way, living beings, (in addition to undead, constructs, etc.) are perceived differently by the laws of the universe than objects.

Well, the D&D universe DOES treat independently motile things differently, with positive and negative energy been alternate elan vitals or "life forces". Maybe a sphere of annihilation, among it's other properties, disrupts those fields.

nedz
2011-04-18, 07:25 PM
Oh, Im aware of both.

Still, a curved surface makes pi smaller, I do believe. So, by measuring it on a somewhat dished surface, it would be possible to get say...pi =3 easy enough.

But pi = 4? That's out there in pure math land.

In an elliptical geometry π < π
In a hyperbolic geometry π > π
Euclidean geometry is hyperbolic

The curved surface to which you refer is an analogy of elliptical geometries. For an analog of hyperbolic geometries consider a saddle.

I don't think I've killed any Catgirls here, I keep mine in a box however so I'm not really sure.

TheCoelacanth
2011-04-18, 09:02 PM
Alright, how many catgirls is this worth:



On a plane(t) with earthlike gravity and air pressure, free fall in the first full round (6 seconds) should cover 700 feet (according to real-world physics). At that point you will have reached roughly 60m/s falling speed, which iirc is roughly the maximum you get due to air resistance. So in each subsequent round, assuming there is plenty of altitude, you fall another 360m ~ 1200 feet.

As you can see, falling is a thing that goes really quick. That's why Feather Fall can be cast at any time even when it's not your turn -- otherwise it would be utterly pointless.

How much will it hurt? At that speed (60m/s), each kg of your mass has a kinetic energy of 1.800J, which is the same ballpark as a rifle bullet -- of course it's not directly comparable, but you know that this energy can kill you already if applied highly concentrated. But you don't weigh 1kg, you weigh maybe 70kg. So when you hit the ground, you go splortch, suffering about the same energy transfer as if you were hit by 70 rifle rounds.

Iirc the D&D rule for falling damage is 1d6 per 10', but this of course completely ignores acceleration. A high-level, very robust type might actually survive 70d6 falling damage. But if you adjust the formula to take the increasing velocity into account, that number should be much higher.

Let's assume (and it's really just an assumption) that the 1d6/10' is benchmarked on a one-second fall, as average for typical falling distances. After a one second you have fallen about 10 metres (33') and have a velocity of roughly 10m/s. Each kg of your mass has a kinetic energy of _25_ Joules. Since you have fallen a bit over 30 feet, you take 3d6 falling damage. No big deal.
Compare: twenty-five --- one thousand eight hundred. That's factor 70. So after falling 700 feet in one full round, ground impact should cause not 70d6 but _210d6_, or about 700 hit points.
Enough to kill a dragon, and certainly enough to make sure a humanoid is turned into chunky salsa without bothering to roll damage.

edit: The good news is that falling damage doesn't increase after the first round.

Your math is off. Potential energy is directly proportional to height so kinetic energy is directly proportional to the distance fallen. It will be less if air resistance is taken into account so the formula of 1d6/10' will actually overestimate damage, though it does set the maximum damage too low.

A fall of 10 meter takes 1.43 seconds giving a velocity of 14.3 m/s and a KE of 102 J/kg.

10 ft. = .5(9.8 m/s^2)(t)^2
t = 1.43 s
v = 10 m/1.43 s = 14.3 m/s
KE = .5(1 kg)(14.3 m/s)^2

A six second fall will cover 176 meters, roughly 590 feet.

d = .5(9.8 m/s^s)(6 s)^s = 176 m = 590 ft

The kinetic energies and the distances fallen both differ by about a factor of 18.