Worst abuses of science in 3.x

[Jeff the Green]

Wizards has done some absolutely vile stuff to science over the years. Some is excusable as part of the genre (ignoring the square-cube law in order to have giant insects, for example), or for simplicity's sake (such as having fireball's radius be independent of how low the ceiling is) but some isn't.

There are a couple that strike me as egregious. First, the fact that Spot DCs scale linearly with distance. This not only violates the inverse-square law, but it has absurd effects, like that it's nearly beyond mortal ability to see someone hidden extremely poorly (DC 0) from across a football field (-30 penalty).

Then there's the placement of Glyptodon and Smilodon in the dire animals of Frostburn. Neither lived in frozen environments despite existing during the Last Glacial Maximum, but instead preferred temperate to tropical climes. Both crossed the Isthmus of Panama (in different directions), for instance, which has never had a chilly climate.

(Another minor quibble about Glyptodon is that it didn't have a club tail, though its relative Doedicurus did.)

Likewise there's the odd choice to put Diprotodon (a giant wombat) in with the dinosaurs in Sandstorm. They don't even try the ass-cover of "these aren't dinosaurs but often occur with them" they used in Stormwrack with the aquatic reptiles. Diprotodon also has the same problem as Glyptodon and Smilodon in that it most certainly did not live in the desert, but instead in tropical dry forests.

What other abominations has WotC produced?

[Rubik]

What other abominations has WotC produced?Magic.-------------------

[Mithril Leaf]

Magic.-------------------

/thread

Also, thermodynamics.

[Twilightwyrm]

Yeah, most of magic does this. (With transmutation and conjuration being the consistently worst offenders).

Evolution seems to also have been put through the ringer a bit as well. Additionally, all the flying animals first come to mind, as beyond a certain mass flying becomes less and less possible. Granted this is somewhat explained in the cast of dragons (as having unconscious magic to aid them), but even if we extrapolate this to giant eagles, giant owls, and pegasi (among others), they can still do so in an anti-magic field, meaning they are still flying under their own power. Sometimes several hundred ton creatures are flying under their own power. I get that it is a popular motif of fantasy, and even one I enjoy, but this is still rather egregious.

[Lateral]

Falling rules. All falling objects fall 500 feet in the first round, 1000 feet in the second and later. A feather, dropped from a mile up, will hit the ground exactly as quickly as an iron rod dropped from the same height. Air resistance? What's that?

Also, I am offended by their placing of Elasmosaurus under the 'dinosaur' category.

[Platymus Pus]

What about Alchemy?

Falling rules. All falling objects fall 500 feet in the first round, 1000 feet in the second and later. A feather, dropped from a mile up, will hit the ground exactly as quickly as an iron rod dropped from the same height. Air resistance? What's that?

Also, I am offended by their placing of Elasmosaurus under the 'dinosaur' category.

Sounds like you can kill things just by dropping several thousand copper pieces on them.

[Milo v3]

Also, I am offended by their placing of Elasmosaurus under the 'dinosaur' category.

More or less offended than them saying a Diprotodon is a dinosaur? :smalltongue:

[gooddragon1]

The commoner railgun. To a lesser extent how an arrow could travel over a distance of 1 mile in 6 seconds by "human power".

[EvilJames]

I would be more offended by Diprotodon's D&D dinosaurdom than Elasmosaurus's
As a kid i didn't know the difference between a dinosaur and the ancient aquatic reptiles, but even then I knew the difference between a dinosaur and a mammal.

[Lateral]

More or less offended than them saying a Diprotodon is a dinosaur? :smalltongue:
Less, but still offended. Proper taxonomy is important, people.
/me science nerd

[Rubik]

Gnomes. *shudder* They're just not natural.

[Milo v3]

Gnomes. *shudder* They're just not natural.

Though there is a feat which acknowledges they that they don't exist. Allows you to disbelieve them with a will saving throw. :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

Though there is a feat which acknowledges they that they don't exist. Allows you to disbelieve them with a will saving throw. :smalltongue:But they do even MORE damage if you make your save. There's a PrC. And a feat.

[MinMax Hardcore]

armor and weapons.

[A_S]

The butchering of pi (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14148691&postcount=1052) is pretty bad.

[Spuddles]

ignoring the square-cube law in order to have giant insects, for example

That argument holds no water. Giant arthropods with a different evolutionary history could easily produce giant specimens- abundance of metals in the environment, different selection pressure on size, and a different evolution of internal anatomy.

In other words, evolution doesn't work how you think it does. And in D&D, who knows if it works at all. There aren't any physical laws preventing the creation of giant arthropods.

Since we're unable to describe how a bumblebee flies using newtonian mechanics, should we conclude that bumblebees cannot fly?


Then there's the placement of Glyptodon and Smilodon in the dire animals of Frostburn. Neither lived in frozen environments despite existing during the Last Glacial Maximum, but instead preferred temperate to tropical climes. Both crossed the Isthmus of Panama (in different directions), for instance, which has never had a chilly climate.

I believe both the Glyptodontidae and the Machairodontinae had species that lived in environment that could be considered Frostfell"- what the book calls arctic & boreal biomes.


Diprotodon also has the same problem as Glyptodon and Smilodon in that it most certainly did not live in the desert, but instead in tropical dry forests.

Sandstorm introduces the concept of the "Waste". Most of the animals that would live in tropical dry forests & savanna would abut the Waste. Dustbowls, incursions of the elemental plane of fire, playas, and sand dunes are all considered Waste, all of which could be adjacent to the habitat you typically find jackals, hippos, or giant wombats.

[Forrestfire]

Owlbears. :smalltongue:


More seriously, I think that the fact that the hypotenuse of a right triangle with 45 degree values in the other two angles is equal to the length of one of the sides. Unless it's immediately preceeded by another one of these triangles, with parallel, touching hypotenuses. In that case, it's twice the length of the side :smallamused:

√2 = 1 or 2, depending on your frame of reference. I wonder what that does to math.

[Zombimode]

There are a couple that strike me as egregious. First, the fact that Spot DCs scale linearly with distance. This not only violates the inverse-square law, but it has absurd effects, like that it's nearly beyond mortal ability to see someone hidden extremely poorly (DC 0) from across a football field (-30 penalty).

You find that hard to believe?
Spot vs. Hide is not used to see someone who is just standing there. It is used to spot someone actively hiding.

Imagine some just cowering behind some bushes. Sure, it really easy to spot him at close distances, but form 100 meters across? You'll have a hard time. Maybe -30 is to much, but I don't see it as "egregious" as you make it out to be.


Then there's the placement of Glyptodon and Smilodon in the dire animals of Frostburn. Neither lived in frozen environments despite existing during the Last Glacial Maximum, but instead preferred temperate to tropical climes. Both crossed the Isthmus of Panama (in different directions), for instance, which has never had a chilly climate.

These creatures where continuously displayed as living in cold climates in educational books and other pop-cultural works for, what, 30-40 years. Even if people are made aware by newer scientific records that this may be a inaccurate depiction, it wouldn't change that they are iconic "ice age" creatures. Thats why they are in Frostburn.


Likewise there's the odd choice to put Diprotodon (a giant wombat) in with the dinosaurs in Sandstorm. They don't even try the ass-cover of "these aren't dinosaurs but often occur with them" they used in Stormwrack with the aquatic reptiles. Diprotodon also has the same problem as Glyptodon and Smilodon in that it most certainly did not live in the desert, but instead in tropical dry forests.

You really seem to get worked up by this misplaced animal stuff, don't you?


Really, those last two complaints seem to me on the same level as complaining about impulse-lasers, explosions and sound in space and small dogfighting fighter spacecraft.

They are certainly not "egregious" since they don't break the image of a fantastic yet familiar fantasy landscape (its not like they were trying to place polar bears in the Sahara or baleen whales in the Alps).

And I can't see how those are examples of "abuse of science" in any way. D&D books are not part of any scientific discourse. The writers did not cite any scientific works to legitimate their ideas. Nor did they (ab)used scientific methods to shed their writing in a light of credibility.



The commoner railgun.

Only actual example of science abuse so far in the thread. Science and rules abuse to by precise (and, of course, by the rules you actually can't produce a "railgun").

[Tovec]

I can't believe that no one mentioned the craziness in combat - and if you did and I missed it then I'm sorry.

Fire an arrow and it hits the target? At essentially any distance... within 6 seconds. Spells with "long range" are the same. How many ways can you max out the range on these things?

Landing 7 or more solid blows in 6 seconds, every round. I get that there is proficiency, and then there is craziness. x2 when combined with the bow.

Falling damage, aka falling off a cliff/out of the sky, and survive most of the time - assuming you have decent con, more levels or even good HD.

Ouh, oouh, fireball doesn't have a compression effect - no shock wave.
Lightning spell requires... nothing, doesn't even need an atmosphere to work.

And I think we managed to build a level 12.. or was it 15? monk (primarily) character that could reach mach.

Or were you meaning something more specific?

[LordChaos13]

The commoner railgun. To a lesser extent how an arrow could travel over a distance of 1 mile in 6 seconds by "human power".

Commoner railgun doesn't work.
Commoner postal service does however (The only difference is one deals damage by enforcing RL physics at a distinct point, the other uses RAW and only RAW)



You all have to remember that the world of D&D is NOT the Real World. Just because a physical rule is Changed, doesn't mean it's an abuse, same as if someone made an astronomy program that allowed people to mess with the 4 Forces.
In D&Dland Arrows and other projectiles move infinitely fast. The world is cut into distinct 6second blocks. Extraordinary doesn't mean 'follows RL physics' it just means it is immune to AMF fields.

A dragon might not fly under the power of it's wings, but combined with the innate magic of being an overgrown lizard they CAN. Said expression of arcana is done in such a way as to be immune to AMF fields
Pi might not be 3.numbers, it could just be a flat 4. Eberronians wouldn't know thats strange, they grew up in a world like that.
Evolution doesn't really work except in the following ways:
1. Some creatures when bred with a creature not of the same type/name (depending) will grant certain abilities (the 1/2 Template)
2. Certain 1/2 Templates (specifically Demonic and Angelic varieties) when combined with Human will degrade into Aasimar or Tiefling as the Human aspect becomes dominant over generations.

So we can assume a few things about D&D Evolutions by RAW:
-Some types of creatures have exclusive genes (for lack of better term, DNA and such may not actually exist) that manifest ontop of a baseline member of another race when interbreeding
-Said interbreeding is mostly if not entirely universal. Though many 1/2 Templates apply only to Humanoids giving credence to the hypothesis that the other Types are mutations creating mule crossbreeds or miscarriages due to genes being rearranged and lethally combined in certain cases
-Humans gradually dilute the genes of the template-granting race in some cases. This may be a unique interaction with the templates OR the other types have evolved a resistance to the HuDG (Human Dominance Gene)
-Very little changes within a population without divine providence or crossbreeding, leading to hypothesis that D&D evolution is sharp and sudden, with entire templates and changes built up but not activated until a final spark OR every new race is shaped by the Gods or other higher powers

[TuggyNE]

Sounds like you can kill things just by dropping several thousand copper pieces on them.

Actually, no; copper pieces (and anything else under 1 pound) do no damage by falling. Of course, that's kind of stupid too, but whatever.

[Spuddles]

Actually, no; copper pieces (and anything else under 1 pound) do no damage by falling. Of course, that's kind of stupid too, but whatever.

What counts as an "object" in D&D is rather nebulous- a pile of a thousand pounds of copper coins could count as an object, for instance. See Shrink Item's ability to shrink a fire as weird object rules.

[Killer Angel]

since Rubik already won the thread, I want to specify a thing



Smilodon in the dire animals of Frostburn. Neither lived in frozen environments despite existing during the Last Glacial Maximum, but instead preferred temperate to tropical climes. Both crossed the Isthmus of Panama (in different directions), for instance, which has never had a chilly climate.


That's not true. Here (https://www.google.it/search?q=diego+ice+age&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=-ng1UsGEKdCYhQev34DwCA&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=905&dpr=1#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Lj15LT2mG6VwEM%3A%3BoemoKESDKD5kfM%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fimages4.fanpop.com%252Fimage%252Fphoto s%252F21700000%252FDiego-ice-age-21756662-1024-768.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.fanpop.com%252Fcl ubs%252Fice-age%252Fimages%252F21756662%252Ftitle%252Fdiego-wallpaper%3B1024%3B768)'s the proof.

[lord_khaine]

In other words, evolution doesn't work how you think it does. And in D&D, who knows if it works at all. There aren't any physical laws preventing the creation of giant arthropods.


Actualy there kinda is, you gotta change so much about them that the would no longer be classified as arthropods.


Since we're unable to describe how a bumblebee flies using newtonian mechanics, should we conclude that bumblebees cannot fly?

A common misconception (unless i misunderstand what you mean by newtonian), as i understand its just that the initial calculations based on wing size and speed said it should not have been able to carry the bumblebee.
So it was studied a bit, and the formula was adjusted a bit to take it into account, but the details has been explained.

[Spuddles]

Actualy there kinda is, you gotta change so much about them that the would no longer be classified as arthropods.


No you don't. Arthropod merely means "jointed limb". You can retain virtually everything a lay person would consider comprises a giant bug yet have it function at gigantic proportions.


A common misconception (unless i misunderstand what you mean by newtonian), as i understand its just that the initial calculations based on wing size and speed said it should not have been able to carry the bumblebee.
So it was studied a bit, and the formula was adjusted a bit to take it into account, but the details has been explained.

Well duh.

The initial calculations were done based on lift vs. resistance but failed to account for air viscosity and vortexes.

[nedz]

Physics can be said to have begun with Galileo's Law of Relativity and Descartes use of co-ordinate systems.

Well 3.5 dispenses with the first because there is no momentum and the second one falls to the always round numbers down rule (hence that business with pi), and this is before magic.

Chemistry is ignored in favour of Aristotelian elements, so that's moot.

Biology fails on a number of levels. There are just way too many predators, in fact most predators target other predators. Evolution has been replaced by Wizards. I won't dwell on undead.

Astronomy is a place you can go to.

[Chronos]

D&D doesn't actually approximate sqrt(2) as 1 or 2; it approximates it as 1.5, and then rounds. Which isn't actually all that bad of an approximation, for something you can do quickly in your head.

[Necroticplague]

No you don't. Arthropod merely means "jointed limb". You can retain virtually everything a lay person would consider comprises a giant bug yet have it function at gigantic proportions.
Really?It seems that almost every feature of arthropods seems to work against them getting bigger (thus, why in real life they're small).
Exoskeletons:in accordance with cube-square, these would quickly become prohibitively heavy (thus why animals in real life with them are either small, live underwater, or both)
No true lungs:No way an arthropod could get whatever it needs from the air into its if it gets big enough (even the ancient "giant" arthropods were as thin as sticks when there was a lot more oxygen that now because of this).
No internal skeleton:what's to stop their organs from smashing into each other and sloshing around when they move?for us, we have a skeleton to keep it in place, and they have their's kept in place by being small enough that it isn't a problem. get bigger and that will be a problem.
High metabolism:simply put, these things live fast, and die young. were they bigger, they would would probably burn food faster than they could consume it, especially given their more complex locomotion (the fact that the biggest things with more than 4 legs on land is only about 9 pounds isn't a coincidence).

[EvilJames]

There aren't any physical laws preventing the creation of giant arthropods.

Since we're unable to describe how a bumblebee flies using newtonian mechanics, should we conclude that bumblebees cannot fly?





Yes there are, arthropods can only get to a certain size in an earth like enviroment otherwise the exoskeloton would collapse under it's own weight. Now this doesn't apply to arthopods that live underwater and it does assume an earth like enviroment so you could say that d&d takes place on a planet only superficially like earth.
Also we know how bumble bees fly, that's a myth developed from a math error. The error was fixed very shortly after.

[mattie_p]

Also we know how bumble bees fly, that's a myth developed from a math error. The error was fixed very shortly after.

Only if you define a math error as "back of the napkin first-order approximation." Snopes has details (http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp).

[Jeff the Green]

Only if you define a math error as "back of the napkin first-order approximation." Snopes has details (http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp).

Notably, this seems to have been done by a drunk engineer who made the calculations assuming that bumblebees are fixed-wing aircraft.

[Kyeudo]

Really?It seems that almost every feature of arthropods seems to work against them getting bigger (thus, why in real life they're small).
Exoskeletons:in accordance with cube-square, these would quickly become prohibitively heavy (thus why animals in real life with them are either small, live underwater, or both)
No true lungs:No way an arthropod could get whatever it needs from the air into its if it gets big enough (even the ancient "giant" arthropods were as thin as sticks when there was a lot more oxygen that now because of this).
No internal skeleton:what's to stop their organs from smashing into each other and sloshing around when they move?for us, we have a skeleton to keep it in place, and they have their's kept in place by being small enough that it isn't a problem. get bigger and that will be a problem.
High metabolism:simply put, these things live fast, and die young. were they bigger, they would would probably burn food faster than they could consume it, especially given their more complex locomotion (the fact that the biggest things with more than 4 legs on land is only about 9 pounds isn't a coincidence).

You are making an assumption here that the "arthropod" would be an upscaled version of an existing creature, with no changes. Most of your points could be handled and still have the outward appearance of "Giant Crab" or "Giant Ant"

For example, I'm fairly sure that the weight problems of an exoskeleton can be mitigated by changing the design from entirely solid plates to something honeycombed or otherwise cross braced.

The metabolic problems would simply be adjusted down, the "sloshy" organs problem would be solved by some sort of compartmentalizing membranes or by anchoring ligaments, and they'd develop some sort of analog to lungs to handle the increased oxegen need.

Also, magic.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The commoner railgun. To a lesser extent how an arrow could travel over a distance of 1 mile in 6 seconds by "human power".

Move a bucket of water over a mile in six seconds, then fling it with the force of an Str 10 commoner!

[Lightlawbliss]

...
Fire an arrow and it hits the target? At essentially any distance... within 6 seconds. Spells with "long range" are the same. How many ways can you max out the range on these things?

DnD doesn't actually state that it hits the target within 6 seconds, that is an assumption commonly made. Second: arrows can travel a rather long ways in 6 seconds, covering your standard 50 ft or less combat distance in a fraction of a second.


Landing 7 or more solid blows in 6 seconds, every round. I get that there is proficiency, and then there is craziness. x2 when combined with the bow.

Again, not unrealistic at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g
7 arrows in 6 seconds is nothing compared to what RL people are doing. Also, in competitive fighting, Blows are landed MUCH faster then they are in dnd. People are known to throw 5+ per second reliably and accurately.


Falling damage, aka falling off a cliff/out of the sky, and survive most of the time - assuming you have decent con, more levels or even good HD.

again, realistic. especially realistic when you start using techniques to reduce the effect. People have fallen out of airplanes with a bad shoot and lived, injured but alive. Keep in mind that by DND standards, most people are 1, maybe 2 HD with a max of 18 con.


Ouh, oouh, fireball doesn't have a compression effect - no shock wave.
Lightning spell requires... nothing, doesn't even need an atmosphere to work.

Fireballs could very well have a compression effect, it just doesn't cause any negative effects above and beyond the damage being done by the spell.

Requiring a conductor isn't something most people will ever encounter and just makes things harder. Also, who say magic can't/doesn't make a conductor.


And I think we managed to build a level 12.. or was it 15? monk (primarily) character that could reach mach.
...
LvL 15 character optimized for speed reaching mach. Humans travel over the speed of sound all the time (granted, not under their own power). this is the closest you have to breaking physics in your post and it is one easily waved off as "nobody irl is this high level".

[EvilJames]

You are making an assumption here that the "arthropod" would be an upscaled version of an existing creature, with no changes. Most of your points could be handled and still have the outward appearance of "Giant Crab" or "Giant Ant"

For example, I'm fairly sure that the weight problems of an exoskeleton can be mitigated by changing the design from entirely solid plates to something honeycombed or otherwise cross braced.

The metabolic problems would simply be adjusted down, the "sloshy" organs problem would be solved by some sort of compartmentalizing membranes or by anchoring ligaments, and they'd develop some sort of analog to lungs to handle the increased oxegen need.

Also, magic.

Magic is really the only useful thing you have there. Even if your idea could work for arthropods, they would still be limited. Even endoskleletal creatures are limited by the effects of gravity and oxygen supply. Elephants are about as big as any land animal can get in this enviroment. Dinosaurs are unlikely to survive in a current earth-like enviroment

[ahenobarbi]

Shrink Item, Featherfall, Teleportation/Planeshifting break conservation of momentum.Fire ball... breaks energy conservation.

[Ashtagon]

DnD doesn't actually state that it hits the target within 6 seconds, that is an assumption commonly made. Second: arrows can travel a rather long ways in 6 seconds, covering your standard 50 ft or less combat distance in a fraction of a second.

Since we are talking RL physics and archery...

Maximum observed RL rate of fire is something like 7 arrows in six seconds. Just counting the first four (for a supposed 20th level character) means the 4th arrow would be loosed in the fourth second, give or take a fraction. Maximum RL arrow velocity is on the order of 350 feet per second.

Putting that together, that 4th arrow shouldn't be able to travel more than 1200 feet or so in that round. With feats and class features, it's quite easy to exceed that by a considerable margin. I believe the D&D range record with a bow is on the order of a few miles (not counting that trick that technically lets you shoot at the moon).

[Gemini476]

Since we are talking RL physics and archery...

Maximum observed RL rate of fire is something like 7 arrows in six seconds. Just counting the first four (for a supposed 20th level character) means the 4th arrow would be loosed in the fourth second, give or take a fraction. Maximum RL arrow velocity is on the order of 350 feet per second.

Putting that together, that 4th arrow shouldn't be able to travel more than 1200 feet or so in that round. With feats and class features, it's quite easy to exceed that by a considerable margin. I believe the D&D range record with a bow is on the order of a few miles (not counting that trick that technically lets you shoot at the moon).

Do note that while there is an epic feat that gives you Range:Line of Sight, you can't actually see the moon due to the linear spot rules.

[Eldan]

Shrink Item, Featherfall, Teleportation/Planeshifting break conservation of momentum.Fire ball... breaks energy conservation.

Not necessarily. I mean, a lot of the energies in magic are pulled here from other planes. If you take those as alternate dimensions in space, the mage is in fact only moving energy in space, which doesn't break energy conservation. Additionally, we don't even know how efficient this is. Perhaps you're taking ten fireballs worth of energy from the plane of fire for every fireball you shoot.

[Lightlawbliss]

Since we are talking RL physics and archery...

Maximum observed RL rate of fire is something like 7 arrows in six seconds. Just counting the first four (for a supposed 20th level character) means the 4th arrow would be loosed in the fourth second, give or take a fraction. Maximum RL arrow velocity is on the order of 350 feet per second.

Putting that together, that 4th arrow shouldn't be able to travel more than 1200 feet or so in that round. With feats and class features, it's quite easy to exceed that by a considerable margin. I believe the D&D range record with a bow is on the order of a few miles (not counting that trick that technically lets you shoot at the moon).

First, read the second part of that post (and if you don't consider youtube reliable, let me know. Google brings up plenty of news articles).

Second, take note that a lot of the tricks to get longer range involve modifying the bow. We can't tell if this boost the speed higher (I agree that there are definitely times where an arrow is likely still in flight come next round, btw).

[ahenobarbi]

Not necessarily. I mean, a lot of the energies in magic are pulled here from other planes. If you take those as alternate dimensions in space, the mage is in fact only moving energy in space, which doesn't break energy conservation. Additionally, we don't even know how efficient this is. Perhaps you're taking ten fireballs worth of energy from the plane of fire for every fireball you shoot.
Hmm could work. Mostly because non-material planes have little to do with real world physics anyways (so you can outsource magic breaking physics laws to them).

[Ashtagon]

First, read the second part of that post (and if you don't consider youtube reliable, let me know. Google brings up plenty of news articles).

Second, take note that a lot of the tricks to get longer range involve modifying the bow. We can't tell if this boost the speed higher (I agree that there are definitely times where an arrow is likely still in flight come next round, btw).

The 7 shots in 6 seconds is simply your own quote, and pretty much matches my own personal observations for rapid archery.

350 fps is actually quite a generous estimate, and assumes a finely-tuned bow with and mod-cons. The "normal" low-end bows in modern usage typical get about 150 fps (the common guestimate is draw weight in lb + 100 = arrow speed in fps).

http://www.greenmanlongbows.co.uk/SPEED%20TESTING%20Measuring%20the%20arrow%20speed% 20of%20bows%20and%20longbows%20using%20a%20chronom eter.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090122075623AAwSOLT

https://sites.google.com/site/technicalarchery/technical-discussions-1/understanding-the-bow-draw-curve

http://www.safebackyards.com/ArrowSpeedDistance.pdf

In fact, the highest noted real-world launch velocity is on the order of 275 fps, significantly lower than my earlier guestimate of 350 fps.

[Gemini476]

First, read the second part of that post (and if you don't consider youtube reliable, let me know. Google brings up plenty of news articles).

Second, take note that a lot of the tricks to get longer range involve modifying the bow. We can't tell if this boost the speed higher (I agree that there are definitely times where an arrow is likely still in flight come next round, btw).

Since you deal damage on the same round that you fire the arrow, I would dispute your claim that arrows work like jumping.

Did someone already mention jumping? 'Cause jumping has extremely weird trajectories. And a slower move speed means you fall slower while jumping. And possibly freeze in midair if you become paralysed.

[Shining Wrath]

As noted, any world with working magic is a world with broken science.

But since physics at least is still counted upon - for example, bigger weapons do more damage - we can note which parts of science are more broken.

I'm not too worried about giant bugs. First, they are a common fantasy trope, therefore they work ... somehow. Since you can score critical hits upon giant vermin, they have vital organs of some sort rather than being oozes with exoskeletons. Therefore, a Giant Spider is not a planet earth arachnid with the same internal structure writ large. Under the hood, they are different. How? I dunno. Work out your own design. I vote for dozens of smaller spiders in cooperation each of which is comprised of smaller cooperating spiders and so on until you get down to manageable size. This is the Johnathan Swift design:


So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum.

[Rubik]

Do note that while there is an epic feat that gives you Range:Line of Sight, you can't actually see the moon due to the linear spot rules.Only if there is cover for the moon to hide behind. That's why you can't see it most of the time during the day. It's hiding behind the planet.

As far as arrows go, the speed of light is obviously slower in D&D worlds, else you could see a torch fire outside of its light radius, so consider how time slows down as you approach the speed of light. Firing an arrow at the moon and striking it in the same round means that you've reached the speed of light with the arrow, and time is sliced infinitely thin.

[SoraWolf7]

Engineers. (http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1pdlnP9gU1qjnss8o1_1280.jpg) Nuff said.

[deuterio12]

Not necessarily. I mean, a lot of the energies in magic are pulled here from other planes. If you take those as alternate dimensions in space, the mage is in fact only moving energy in space, which doesn't break energy conservation. Additionally, we don't even know how efficient this is. Perhaps you're taking ten fireballs worth of energy from the plane of fire for every fireball you shoot.

Still breaks speed of transmission of energy, as the mage is summoning stuff from other planes of existence instantly.

But meh, D&D would be pretty boring if it actually followed the laws of reality.:smalltongue:

[LordChaos13]

Why would time slow down as you approach the speed of light? Where in RAW does it say that?

You guys are taking it the wrong way you have
"Alright so we have X (Our physics) and Y (D&D RAW) What are the differences between X and Y that are readily apparent assuming Y is X except in the cases we find?"
YOu should be asking:
"Alright we have this outcome (RAW), what causes this? What are the underlying principles of RAW?"

Science still works, it just has different rules. Entirely different rules you can't compare to reality
Forget the Theory of Gravity. Things fall at certain rates regardless of size, density and other variables

[Urpriest]

These creatures where continuously displayed as living in cold climates in educational books and other pop-cultural works for, what, 30-40 years. Even if people are made aware by newer scientific records that this may be a inaccurate depiction, it wouldn't change that they are iconic "ice age" creatures. Thats why they are in Frostburn.


True for the Smilodon, not for the Glyptodon. Popular and educational books uniformly depict the Glyptodon as living in tropical climates, since it falls into the whole "south american fauna" thing.

The most egregious thing about the Diprotodon is that one of the people writing Sandstorm thought it was the same animal as a Protoceratops, since it is listed as a Paladin mount despite the Protoceratops being the one that both is actually roughly in the right hit dice range for a paladin mount and doesn't put a paladin on top of a giant wombat.

[Fax Celestis]

Falling rules. All falling objects fall 500 feet in the first round, 1000 feet in the second and later. A feather, dropped from a mile up, will hit the ground exactly as quickly as an iron rod dropped from the same height. Air resistance? What's that?

...no they don't?


Minimum Forward Speed
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.


Ouh, oouh, fireball doesn't have a compression effect - no shock wave.
Lightning spell requires... nothing, doesn't even need an atmosphere to work.

Not a physics error: fireball isn't an explosion: it's creation of elemental fire in a space. Lightning bolt is the same way.

[Spuddles]

Really?It seems that almost every feature of arthropods seems to work against them getting bigger (thus, why in real life they're small).
Exoskeletons:in accordance with cube-square, these would quickly become prohibitively heavy (thus why animals in real life with them are either small, live underwater, or both)
No true lungs:No way an arthropod could get whatever it needs from the air into its if it gets big enough (even the ancient "giant" arthropods were as thin as sticks when there was a lot more oxygen that now because of this).
No internal skeleton:what's to stop their organs from smashing into each other and sloshing around when they move?for us, we have a skeleton to keep it in place, and they have their's kept in place by being small enough that it isn't a problem. get bigger and that will be a problem.
High metabolism:simply put, these things live fast, and die young. were they bigger, they would would probably burn food faster than they could consume it, especially given their more complex locomotion (the fact that the biggest things with more than 4 legs on land is only about 9 pounds isn't a coincidence).

Metabolism is inversely related to body mass. Merely scaling up would result in further reducing metabolism. Insects also have relatively non-existant metabolisms, too. Extremely efficient. The inverse relationship of body mass and metabolism is due to the square-cube law, and applies mostly to endotherms. Insects are not endotherms- some can raise their body temp via vibration, but I dont know of any arthropod that chemically generates a substantial amount of heat to aid metabolic processes.

Therefore, metabolism has nothing to do with scaling up insects, both because that is fundamentally not how metabolism works, and because insects dont have high metabolisms, anyway.

Insects dont breath via passive diffusion- that's a recently disproven hypothesis. Some arthropods, like spiders, even have lungs. There's no reason scaled up arthropods couldnt have more active respiratory structures, and in fact, you would expect it.


Yes there are, arthropods can only get to a certain size in an earth like enviroment otherwise the exoskeloton would collapse under it's own weight. Now this doesn't apply to arthopods that live underwater and it does assume an earth like enviroment so you could say that d&d takes place on a planet only superficially like earth.
Also we know how bumble bees fly, that's a myth developed from a math error. The error was fixed very shortly after.

Exoskeletons constructed of alternative material, such as cobolt impregnated chitin, would make for much sturdier materials. Ichneumonid wasps use such materials in their ovipositers to bore through wood.

And again, you fail to understand the point of the bumblebee exercise. Most internet people seem to. It's not that one cannot explain bumblebee flight, it is that if you approach the problem the wrong way, with incorrect assumptions, and general ignorance how insects work, then you will come to the conclusion that your models are inadequate.

[Spuddles]

The idea that endoskeletons somehow prevent organs from crushing themselves is preposterous. If you're even remotely familiar with vertebrate anatomy, you'd know that there arent any internal bones that are in the middle of organisms that support organs. And if you're familiar with arthropod anatomy, you'd know that they're full of chitinous protrusions to anchor muscles and organs to.

The biggest difference between endoskeletons and exoskeletons are muscle attachment points- otherwise we've all got sacks of organs suspended inside a cage of scleratized tissue.

[Eldan]

Still breaks speed of transmission of energy, as the mage is summoning stuff from other planes of existence instantly.

But meh, D&D would be pretty boring if it actually followed the laws of reality.:smalltongue:

Not instantly, casting a spell takes several seconds. At lightspeed, that's quite some distance :smalltongue:

[EvilJames]

I'm getting a different meaning from your bumble be comment than I think you intended. The person who said that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly was indeed using incorrect assumptions and what not like you said. He thus incorrectly assumed that the Newtonian model was inadequate.

We aren't using incorrect assumptions. The model we are using is quite adequate where as you seem to be assuming that it is not.

Heavier duty materials become heavier bodies and an arthropod shells constructed entirely out of such materials would have great difficulty moving.

I never said anything about bones preventing organs from crushing eachother or themselves. Endoskeletons simply supply better, more efficient support for the body allowing it to get bigger than an exoskeleton. It's just that even an endoskeleton can only be so big before it can no longer support the weight of the body.

I should point out that I am not opposed to the idea of such creatures in D&D. Magic is the all forgiving master of such things and allows things like them and giant humanoids to exist. I am perfectly fine by that.

[LordChaos13]

Still breaks speed of transmission of energy, as the mage is summoning stuff from other planes of existence instantly.

But meh, D&D would be pretty boring if it actually followed the laws of reality.:smalltongue:

Not really. It's about an inch away in the 5th dimension.
You assume each Plane can be laid next to each other in a single megaverse like the alphabet can be laid next to each other. Planes can stack in higher dimensions

[EvilJames]

When we start talking about other planes we can no longer apply science effectively. We don't even know enough about the possibility of other planes to even speculate to any useful degree on how they would interact.

[Icewraith]

You mean like the various supertheories that have been floating around in the world of theoretical physics, all of them unproven but with beautifully tempting math?

What those planes might actually be like we haven't a clue, and it doesn't matter, but they can certainly use the same math. You're just adding a new axis to the preexisting coordinate system and presto! Alternate planes!

[The Trickster]

A bunch of the stuff talked about in the Complete Dysfunctional Handbook makes scientists weep. (Fire not burning wood very well, the aforementioned spot check silliness, etc).

[Lateral]

...no they don't?
Yes, they do. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a) The 150/300 figure is for stalling, not freefall.

[limejuicepowder]

How about the unreasonable durability of items in general (but weapons and armor in particular)?

A fiighter can theoretically level from one to twenty with the same sword, shield, and armor and never have to worry about his sword getting rusty, dull, or shattered, his armor being punctured, or his shield splintering. Never mind that shields are often made of soft wood, like pine, to increase the chance an enemies' weapon will get stuck.

Not that that any of this SHOULD be part of the game.....

[Pickford]

How about the unreasonable durability of items in general (but weapons and armor in particular)?

A fiighter can theoretically level from one to twenty with the same sword, shield, and armor and never have to worry about his sword getting rusty, dull, or shattered, his armor being punctured, or his shield splintering. Never mind that shields are often made of soft wood, like pine, to increase the chance an enemies' weapon will get stuck.

Not that that any of this SHOULD be part of the game.....

Sunder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#Sunder) would like a word with you.

[EvilJames]

You mean like the various supertheories that have been floating around in the world of theoretical physics, all of them unproven but with beautifully tempting math?

What those planes might actually be like we haven't a clue, and it doesn't matter, but they can certainly use the same math. You're just adding a new axis to the preexisting coordinate system and presto! Alternate planes!

I've never heard of any of those or what purpose such theories (which sounds like too strong a word for it) might even serve. They certainly could use the same math, but then they might not.

[Shalist]

Crafting annihilates the conservation of mass.


...pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.So...crafting essentially triples the value of anything you use it on. Lets think about that for a second.

A suit of full plate armor (1500g) requires 500g worth of raw materials, presumably iron. At 1s/lb. That works out to about 5000 pounds of iron just to make a 50 pound suit of armor. Even a 1 pound dagger or gauntlet require nearly 7 pounds of iron to create.

Or going the other way, Craft: Minting uses, say, 1000 gold as the raw materials needed to craft 3000 gold.

(To exploit rules is human; in order to really break the economy, you need fabricate.)


Material Component

The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.

With this, a level 10 wizard could be churning out millions of gold (or platinum) with every casting, and all he'd need is a single coin to get the ball rolling.


Gold is ~1200 pounds / cubic foot, platinum is ~1340...10 cubic feet / CL, so 400,000 gold / CL for gold, or ~446,000 platinum / CL for platinum (of new wealth) with each casting.

See spoiler for depiction of a raptoran sorcerer fabricating new wealth:
http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww30/123456laughs/Lotsamoney.jpg

[Fax Celestis]

Crafting annihilates the conservation of mass.

So...crafting essentially triples the value of anything you use it on. Lets think about that for a second.

A suit of full plate armor (1500g) requires 500g worth of raw materials, presumably iron. At 1s/lb. That works out to about 5000 pounds of iron just to make a 50 pound suit of armor. Even a 1 pound dagger or gauntlet require nearly 7 pounds of iron to create.

Or going the other way, Craft: Minting uses, say, 1000 gold as the raw materials needed to craft 3000 gold.

(To exploit rules is human; in order to really break the economy, you need fabricate.)



With this, a level 10 wizard could be churning out millions of gold (or platinum) with every casting, and all he'd need is a single coin to get the ball rolling.


Gold is ~1200 pounds / cubic foot, platinum is ~1340...10 cubic feet / CL, so 400,000 gold / CL for gold, or ~446,000 platinum / CL for platinum (of new wealth) with each casting.[/QUOTE]

...because labor is free, right?

[Rubik]

...because labor is free, right?It is when you're the one Fabricating.

[Ashtagon]

It is when you're the one Fabricating.

Another important raw material is fuel for the fire (typically coal for steel forging), and oil for quenching the forged blade (yes, water is also used for quenching - afterwards. Well-forged blades will be quenched in oil first, which is what first ave us the historical image of a flaming blade).

[Belial_the_Leveler]

You guys do realize that the laws of physics can't actually be violated, right? They are all probabilities. So something classically "impossible" has a really, really small but nonzero possibility of actually happening.
Let's, for example, say that an event has a chance of happening equal to throwing a hundred d20s and getting a hundred natural 20s in a row. Then comes this guy with the white beard and the pointy hat whose power is to only roll natural 20s.
That power doesn't actually violate natural laws - it doesn't make the d20 to roll a 35, for example. However unlikely it might be, rolling a natural 20 every single time is both possible and within the natural laws.



BTW, the chance of rolling a hundred natural 20s in a row is significantly -as in orders of magnitude- smaller than the chance of spontaneous combustion (fireball!) or a perfectly healthy person inexplicably suffering a fatal aneurysm (finger of death!), or a storm appearing at the location you want it to and the time you want it to instead of any other place or time on the planet (control weather!).

It also is some sixty orders of magnitude less likely than life randomly appearing on its own on a planet or sentient humanoids naturally evolving out of bacteria over two billion years of evolution.

[Jeff the Green]

Another important raw material is fuel for the fire (typically coal for steel forging), and oil for quenching the forged blade (yes, water is also used for quenching - afterwards. Well-forged blades will be quenched in oil first, which is what first ave us the historical image of a flaming blade).

What, you mean all those books and movies of the blade being quenched in a living body were lying?


It also is some sixty orders of magnitude less likely than life randomly appearing on its own on a planet or sentient humanoids naturally evolving out of bacteria over two billion years of evolution.

We don't really know that. In fact, of all the examples of planets capable of supporting such life that we know of, a full 100% have indeed produced sentient humanoids.

[tiltedwindmill]

the thing that always bothered me was actually ecology... i always try to explain why any critters my pc's encounter are in a given location, but usually have a hard time explaining what those critters eat

my games are bad ones in which to be a mushroom

[Shalist]

the thing that always bothered me was actually ecology... i always try to explain why any critters my pc's encounter are in a given location, but usually have a hard time explaining what those critters eat

my games are bad ones in which to be a mushroom

Girl Genius, to the rescue! (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20060501)

http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/ggmain/strips/ggmain20060501.jpg

[Belial_the_Leveler]

We don't really know that. In fact, of all the examples of planets capable of supporting such life that we know of, a full 100% have indeed produced sentient humanoids.


1) Calculate the conditions back when life first appeared.
2) Look up what reactions are needed to create the simplest functional genetic material ever found.
3) Calculate the chance of said reactions happening in said conditions in the given timeframe.


After lots and lots of calculations you realize that the fact that we humans are here and talk about it was a possibility comparable to throwing 37 d10s and getting the maximum possible result, or picking a handful of dust from a bag that contains an even mixture of marble dust and obsidian dust and what you pull being entirely black or entirely white.

Scary, huh?

[Jeff the Green]

1) Calculate the conditions back when life first appeared.
2) Look up what reactions are needed to create the simplest functional genetic material ever found.
3) Calculate the chance of said reactions happening in said conditions in the given timeframe.


After lots and lots of calculations you realize that the fact that we humans are here and talk about it was a possibility comparable to throwing 37 d10s and getting the maximum possible result, or picking a handful of dust from a bag that contains an even mixture of marble dust and obsidian dust and what you pull being entirely black or entirely white.

Scary, huh?

The problem with that approach is that we have no clue what reactions are necessary, nor what proportion of end states result in sentient bipeds, nor what possible paths through fitness landscapes could get you from bacteria to those end states.

Let's put it this way: the chance that my parents had me, out of all the possible combinations of their genes, is miniscule. The chance that they'd have a child was very close to 1.

[ryu]

Plus lets assume just for laughs your figure was even remotely close to correct despite the fact I'd be willing to bet you pulled them out of thin air with no actual basis in the same manner everyone ALWAYS does when trying to take the dissenting position shown. So what? Any given action or event occurring is an absolutely miniscule chance. That something happens at all is given especially with a large amount of time. After the fact supposing is a massive fallacy in itself. If every possible combination in a lottery MUST be picked with no duplicates allowed, the chances of any given person become increasingly small based on the number of characters to guess and the allowed characters to take a given position. That exactly one person will win in this case is a given though.

[Shalist]

Posted this in another thread, but its relevant here (regarding probability and the formation of life):


BBC to the rescue: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22261742)

The idea of entropy is fundamentally an intuitive one - that the Universe tends in general to a more disordered state.

The classic example is a dropped cup: it will smash into pieces, but those pieces will never spontaneously recombine back into a cup. Analogously, a hot cup of coffee will always cool down if left - it will never draw warmth from a room to heat back up.

But the idea of "causal entropy" goes further, suggesting that a given physical system not only maximises the entropy within its current conditions, but that it reaches a state that will allow it more entropy - in a real sense, more options - in the future...

...Further simulations showed how the same idea could drive the development of tool use, social network formation and cooperation, and even the maximisation of profit in a simple financial market.

"While there were hints from a variety of other fields such as cosmology, it was so enormously surprising to see that one could take these principles, apply them to simple systems, and effectively for free have such behaviours pop out," Dr Wissner-Gross said...
Arguably, given the appropriate conditions, the genesis of basic life isn't so much an absurdly improbable event, as it is all but inevitable.

Alternately, similar to Jeff the Green's reasoning: While winning the jackpot with any given lottery ticket is absurdly improbable (thus, one might reason that anyone winning the lottery at all is absurdly improbable), its essentially inevitable that someone will have the right numbers eventually, even if they're not the same numbers you were thinking of.

edit:

http://mmacrypt.com/forum/images/smilies/Ninjad2.png

[Soupz]

Arguably, given the appropriate conditions, the genesis of basic life isn't so much an absurdly improbable event, as it is all but inevitable.

Alternately, similar to Jeff the Green's reasoning: While winning the jackpot with any given lottery ticket is absurdly improbable (thus, one might reason that anyone winning the lottery at all is absurdly improbable), its essentially inevitable that someone will have the right numbers eventually, even if they're not the same numbers you were thinking of.

What is that? Some kind of Chaos theory type stuff? Do people still care about that? What's popular these days? Are people over string theory yet, what's the new fad?

There's a few hundred billion planets in the Milky Way and a few hundred billion Galaxies. Whether or not life must be carbon based might not a given or necessity of water is not a given but whatever can happen without those might not be considered "life" by our standards. Also, I'm tired of finding bacteria in meteorites; I want aliens off my planet. Over the however many billion years the universe has existed, what are the chances of life?

I hate to admit it, but can someone math this for me, I've got youtube crap to watch.

[Shalist]

Also, I'm tired of finding bacteria in meteorites; I want aliens off my planet. Over the however many billion years the universe has existed, what are the chances of life?

I hate to admit it, but can someone math this for me, I've got youtube crap to watch.

Relevant:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_drake_equation.png (http://xkcd.com/384/)

("But seriously, there's loads of intelligent life. It's just not screaming constantly in all directions on the handful of frequencies that we search.")

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_search.png (http://xkcd.com/638/)

("I am so excited about the Kepler mission. This is the second most important thing our species has ever done, right behind inventing the concept of delivery pizza.")

More relevant, with actual math and equations attempting to answer your question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Range_of_values):

...Using lowest values in the above estimates (and assuming the Rare Earth hypothesis implies ne*fl = 10−11, one planet with complex life in the galaxy):

R* = 7/year,[21] fp = 0.4,[22] ne*fl = 10−11, fi = 10−9,[23] fc = 0.1, and L = 304 years[24]

result in

N = 7 × 0.4 × 10-11 × 10-9 × 0.1 × 304 = 8 x 10-20 (suggesting that we are probably alone in this galaxy, and likely the observable universe)

On the other hand, with larger values for each of the parameters above, N may be greater than 1. Using the highest values in that have been proposed for each of the parameters

R* = 7/year,[21] fp = 1,[25] ne = 0.2,[26][27] fl = 0.13,[28] fi = 1,[29] fc = 0.2[Drake, above], and L = 109 years[30]

result in

N = 7 × 1 × 0.2 × 0.13 × 1 × 0.2 × 109 = 36.4 million
And enough spamming the thread for me for one day...off to read several months worth of XKCD's 'What If' series :P

[Ashtagon]

What is that? Some kind of Chaos theory type stuff? Do people still care about that? What's popular these days? Are people over string theory yet, what's the new fad?

This is one of the worst abuses of science in this thread.

Science s not a fad. Science does not care about cool, or popular. Science accepts that it doesn't yet know everything. Science accepts that current theories may be proven wrong. Science simply seeks the facts, with the best approximations of the truth that can be made using the tools available at the time.

Those guys who invented the earliest principles of astrology thousands of years ago? The medieval flat-Earthers and earth-centric solar system theories? The Greeks and their four-humours medical theories? They were scientists. Yes, we know today that their theories were laughably wrong. But by the standards of their day, they were working with the facts and evidence they had available. They were, knowingly or not, using the scientific method. They didn't care about fads.

Chaos theory is real. String theory is real. They may no longer be fads, but they're there. Scientists of today take them seriously. They're the best approximation of reality we have so far when discussing the issues they address (obviously, string theory has little to say on the subject of human evolution).

But a fad? That's never been science, or scientific.

[Jeff the Green]

This is one of the worst abuses of science in this thread.

Science s not a fad. Science does not care about cool, or popular. Science accepts that it doesn't yet know everything. Science accepts that current theories may be proven wrong. Science simply seeks the facts, with the best approximations of the truth that can be made using the tools available at the time.

Those guys who invented the earliest principles of astrology thousands of years ago? The medieval flat-Earthers and earth-centric solar system theories? The Greeks and their four-humours medical theories? They were scientists. Yes, we know today that their theories were laughably wrong. But by the standards of their day, they were working with the facts and evidence they had available. They were, knowingly or not, using the scientific method. They didn't care about fads.

Chaos theory is real. String theory is real. They may no longer be fads, but they're there. Scientists of today take them seriously. They're the best approximation of reality we have so far when discussing the issues they address (obviously, string theory has little to say on the subject of human evolution).

But a fad? That's never been science, or scientific.

Relevant. (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)

[Andvare]

the thing that always bothered me was actually ecology... i always try to explain why any critters my pc's encounter are in a given location, but usually have a hard time explaining what those critters eat

my games are bad ones in which to be a mushroom

I have an ingrown dislike of dungeons. Not only do they IMO kill most chances for actual roleplay, but they destroy any semblance of realism.
When I do resort to them as a GM, I always plan out the logistics. How do they get food and water. How do they manage waste disposal. How do they react to invaders (yeah, alarms are a bitch in a big dungeon/fort for a small unprepared party). How do they recruit. That sort of thing.
It usually forces my players to not go "kicking in the door", to borrow a munchkin phrase, but to tackle such places more strategically.
It is rarely worth the time compared to the gain, and not all players like the style, but I just cannot not do it.

[Jeff the Green]

I have an ingrown dislike of dungeons. Not only do they IMO kill most chances for actual roleplay, but they destroy any semblance of realism.
When I do resort to them as a GM, I always plan out the logistics. How do they get food and water. How do they manage waste disposal. How do they react to invaders (yeah, alarms are a bitch in a big dungeon/fort for a small unprepared party). How do they recruit. That sort of thing.
It usually forces my players to not go "kicking in the door", to borrow a munchkin phrase, but to tackle such places more strategically.
It is rarely worth the time compared to the gain, and not all players like the style, but I just cannot not do it.

They can be fun in certain circumstances. I'm currently in a dungeon crawl that's a lot of fun because the DM is really creative and doesn't constrain the encounters with logic (it helps that the dungeon is explicitly the result of extremely strange magic, and possibly an insane intelligence as well) and because we're playing a bunch of oddball characters that are mechanically very cool, but kind of flat.

But in general, I agree, when planning a dungeon, logistics should come into the equation. It's part of the reason I'm fond of necromancers as villains; it simplifies things.

[Gwendol]

The fact that a typical miner can't use a pick to, well mine, is bothersome.

[georgie_leech]

But by the standards of their day, they were working with the facts and evidence they had available. They were, knowingly or not, using the scientific method. .

It's hard to say they were using the Scientific Method when they left out the Experimenting part. At least, they tended to not experiment with any rigor. Classical thinkers would think about the world, create theories, and then never really bothered to test any of it. What does it mean that everything is composed of 4 elements?

/nitpick

[Jeff the Green]

It's hard to say they were using the Scientific Method when they left out the Experimenting part. At least, they tended to not experiment with any rigor. Classical thinkers would think about the world, create theories, and then never really bothered to test any of it. What does it mean that everything is composed of 4 elements?

/nitpick

Also relevant. (http://xkcd.com/397/)

[Gemini476]

The fact that a typical miner can't use a pick to, well mine, is bothersome.

Non-proficiency with a weapon does not mean that you cannot use the weapon outside of combat (like scything wheat with a scythe), but means that you are not trained to use it in combat.

Oh, and Races of the Dragon had rules for Profession(Miner). I believe somewhere else stated that appropriate damage should ignore hardness (such as picks for rock or fire for wood, although the latter was not explicitly stated).

[limejuicepowder]

Sunder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#Sunder) would like a word with you.

Sunder takes a positive action on the part of one's opponent (which is why I said theoretically possible). It also can't be used against armor. Equipment breaking through normal use is entiely outside the scope of the rules, despite how often it happens IRL.

[Soupz]

This is one of the worst abuses of science in this thread.

Science is not a fad. Science does not care about cool, or popular. Science accepts that it doesn't yet know everything. Science accepts that current theories may be proven wrong. Science simply seeks the facts, with the best approximations of the truth that can be made using the tools available at the time.


Thanks for quoting one of my favourite writers. :smallsmile:

Asimov is one of the ways pop culture gets its fads of "science". Crichton, Bradbury, Arthur C Clarke, Vonnegut, etc. Then it gets into movies and tv shows, it's mention on the Big Bang Theory with the laugh track in the background.

Then there's the thing at the universities where science is funded by whoever has the best connections and more funding whatever field is popular at the time. Anything "bio" has been in for a while. Remember back when "space travel" was in and now it's out.

I use the word fad because scientific research is still driven by the human factor that you can't remove. I think my reason for being such a prick about it is that I was a big Vonnegut fan as a kid and he always liked people with their pants down about any pretensions, including specifically scientists. That and my professor friends who frequently complain about the people they work with.

Thanks to the person who posted the Drake equation, that's exactly the formula I was looking for. Saw a TED Talk about it and didn't remember its name.

[Larkas]

It's hard to say they were using the Scientific Method when they left out the Experimenting part. At least, they tended to not experiment with any rigor. Classical thinkers would think about the world, create theories, and then never really bothered to test any of it. What does it mean that everything is composed of 4 elements?

/nitpick

To be more precise, the scientific method as we know it can probably be traced back to the pre-Socratic philosophers. They were, as far as we know it, the first thinkers to try and seek the "truth", even though many were quite aware that such truth could not be achieved, merely approximated. Of course, these were the first forays into Science that we have recorded, but if you look into Plato's, and what we know of Socrates', thinking, you can see how far, and how fast, the Greeks went.

--sneaky self scrub--

---

On other news, tens of catgirls have already been killed by this thread alone. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[warmachine]

That the underground areas haven't collapsed is, of course, a violation of physics and geology. Also, its rich ecology makes no sense when it has almost no energy input. The surface ecologies have it easy with vast quantities of sunlight but, for the underground, heat is the only viable source. However, that requires a temperate gradient. Plants with immensely deep roots acting as heat exchanges might work, if they could penetrate rock, but it'd still be a poor energy source.

[Shining Wrath]

1) Calculate the conditions back when life first appeared.
2) Look up what reactions are needed to create the simplest functional genetic material ever found.
3) Calculate the chance of said reactions happening in said conditions in the given timeframe.


After lots and lots of calculations you realize that the fact that we humans are here and talk about it was a possibility comparable to throwing 37 d10s and getting the maximum possible result, or picking a handful of dust from a bag that contains an even mixture of marble dust and obsidian dust and what you pull being entirely black or entirely white.

Scary, huh?

You miss one critical point, which is that you aren't just conducting this experiment in one place. You're conducting it in every drop of water on the surface of the planet, simultaneously, 7x24. So yes, 10^37 odds per trial - but 10^20th trials per second, and you've got eternity.

[SethoMarkus]

As noted, any world with working magic is a world with broken science.

But since physics at least is still counted upon - for example, bigger weapons do more damage - we can note which parts of science are more broken.

Science isn't broken in a world with working magic. Science is simply the systematic study of the rules the govern an observable, measurable phenomenon. Wizards are scientists; albeit, they are insane scientists, but scientists they are. It is physics that is broken/different in a world with working magic.


Why would time slow down as you approach the speed of light? Where in RAW does it say that?

You guys are taking it the wrong way you have
"Alright so we have X (Our physics) and Y (D&D RAW) What are the differences between X and Y that are readily apparent assuming Y is X except in the cases we find?"
YOu should be asking:
"Alright we have this outcome (RAW), what causes this? What are the underlying principles of RAW?"

Science still works, it just has different rules. Entirely different rules you can't compare to reality
Forget the Theory of Gravity. Things fall at certain rates regardless of size, density and other variables

Definitely this. The question shouldn't be "how is science broken", but should be "what does science look like in D&D, and how does it relate to effects x, y, and z?"

[limejuicepowder]

What do you mean by "can't be used"?


Am I really being that unclear? The only way equipment (or anything for that matter) breaks in the DnD world is if someone sets out to break it. Even the most mundane of swords don't become dull, chip, crack, or shatter unless someone takes a sunder action. This is not even close to how the real world works, where things wear out and require constant upkeep.

Also, read the last sentence of your rules quote. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here actually.

[nedz]

That the underground areas haven't collapsed is, of course, a violation of physics and geology. Also, its rich ecology makes no sense when it has almost no energy input. The surface ecologies have it easy with vast quantities of sunlight but, for the underground, heat is the only viable source. However, that requires a temperate gradient. Plants with immensely deep roots acting as heat exchanges might work, if they could penetrate rock, but it'd still be a poor energy source.

It's well known that monsters of the underdark get their energy from mushrooms and dead adventurers. Now where do the mushrooms get their energy from ? The stains left by dead or dying adventurers of course. Killer DMs are really misnamed; they bring life to the underdark.

[LordChaos13]

Science isn't broken in a world with working magic. Science is simply the systematic study of the rules the govern an observable, measurable phenomenon. Wizards are scientists; albeit, they are insane scientists, but scientists they are. It is physics that is broken/different in a world with working magic.



Definitely this. The question shouldn't be "how is science broken", but should be "what does science look like in D&D, and how does it relate to effects x, y, and z?"

Well we know certain things:
a) Levels exist. Beings do not have a steady linear graph of power increases, rather distinct boosts then plateaus.
b) Killing things and taking their stuff can make you a better singer

Conclusion: Souls can be explained like RL atoms. They can have X amount of electrons in a ring, then Y (where X is smaller than Y) in another ring of electrons around that.
Having a full ring of XP gives certain traits. Defeating a person generates an amount of XP based on their own rings, and since defeating =/= killing in all cases this is a DECREASE in entropy.

Thus, Entropy doesn't work in D&D because levels :smallamused:

[Eldan]

My problem isn't that the underdark should collapse. It's that it should be flooded.

Also, energy isn't a problem. Radiotrophic fungi, heat, chemotrophic bacteria, magic.

Just make sure to explain that Drow mostly subsist on licking bacterial films from the walls and fishing tube worms from sulphurous water.

[Larkas]

Am I really being that unclear? The only way equipment (or anything for that matter) breaks in the DnD world is if someone sets out to break it. Even the most mundane of swords don't become dull, chip, crack, or shatter unless someone takes a sunder action. This is not even close to how the real world works, where things wear out and require constant upkeep.

Also, read the last sentence of your rules quote. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here actually.

What? Are you sure you quoted the right person? http://noisen.com/Smileys/cyna/whistling2.gif

[warmachine]

It's well known that monsters of the underdark get their energy from mushrooms and dead adventurers. Now where do the mushrooms get their energy from ? The stains left by dead or dying adventurers of course. Killer DMs are really misnamed; they bring life to the underdark.
That's funny, even if the maths is total nonsense. This leads to the question of what attracted adventurers before there was an underdark society and ecology. A chicken-and-egg dilemma. An answer to such an dilemma is evolution from a previous system but what? Perhaps the underdark ecology sprang from the bodies of dead dwarven miners.

[ahenobarbi]

That's funny, even if the maths is total nonsense. This leads to the question of what attracted adventurers before there was an underdark society and ecology. A chicken-and-egg dilemma. An answer to such an dilemma is evolution from a previous system but what? Perhaps the underdark ecology sprang from the bodies of dead dwarven miners.

I thought magic is the energy source... portals to other planes, earth nodes creating matter etc.

[Jeff the Green]

Beats me. I never cited that theory as an example of their science. I cited the four humours (Humorism) theory about their medical science - you know, blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile. It was an attempt to associate medical imbalances with personality issues. The specifics were wrong, but were almost certainly based on some level of observation (as was astrology, at least in the beginning). And the basic concept (medical issues affect personality and behaviour) is, by current theory, quite solid.

More importantly, the four elements theory (or its five elements theory counterpart in China) is wrong, but less wrong than the idea that everything is made up of unique substances. There are a limited number of elements that combine in different ways to produce all but a very few and very exotic substances in the universe. The Greek and Chinese philosophers just underestimated the number.

[Gwendol]

Non-proficiency with a weapon does not mean that you cannot use the weapon outside of combat (like scything wheat with a scythe), but means that you are not trained to use it in combat.

Oh, and Races of the Dragon had rules for Profession(Miner). I believe somewhere else stated that appropriate damage should ignore hardness (such as picks for rock or fire for wood, although the latter was not explicitly stated).

A heavy pick does 1d6 damage. Stone has hardness 8. It's a ridiculous system.

[warmachine]

I thought magic is the energy source... portals to other planes, earth nodes creating matter etc.

Magic is cheating. Magic is saying "I don't care how anything works. La! La! La! I can't hear you."

[Lightlawbliss]

Well, yeah. That's why you take 20 on those attack rolls to score a crit. for ×4 damage.

Objects are crit immune.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Eh, RotD introduces profession: Miner so you don't have to attack a rock to mine it.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, yeah. That's why you take 20 on those attack rolls to score a crit. for ×4 damage.

I'm pretty sure you can't crit a rock any more than you can crit a golem. However:

Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.
Also, mining isn't handled by attack rolls, it's handled by Profession (miner)

[LordChaos13]

Magic is cheating. Magic is saying "I don't care how anything works. La! La! La! I can't hear you."

Bull.
Magic can and has been used as such, but so has pretty much everything in Science Fiction, you arent decrying THAT as being unrealistic and all "I don't care lalala"
But a magic system that has been fully explained, thought out and used effectively can lead to fully fleshed out plausible worlds that COULD arise if given those laws of physics.

An example would be the Tippyverse, which is D&D RAW taken literally, at least in regards to spells.
All the spells are taken into account for worldbuilding, none of which are used for "Lalala dont care"
Granted it doesn't address the issue of increasing entropy, underground ecosystems etc. but its still relevant.

[Gwendol]

Eh, RotD introduces profession: Miner so you don't have to attack a rock to mine it.

Yeah, because without sinking ranks into that profession it's impossible to break rock with a heavy pick.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I'm pretty sure you can't crit a rock any more than you can crit a golem. However:

Also, mining isn't handled by attack rolls, it's handled by Profession (miner)

Where did you find that SRD Quote? I spent like ten minutes(:smallredface:) looking for it and I couldn't find it so I posted the thing about profession miner.

[Jeff the Green]

Where did you find that SRD Quote? I spent like ten minutes(:smallredface:) looking for it and I couldn't find it so I posted the thing about profession miner.

Right here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#vulnerabilitytoCertainAttacks), under "Exploration/Breaking and Entering/Smashing an Object/Hit Points/Vulnerability to Certain Attacks"

[Rubik]

On other news, tens of catgirls have already been killed by this thread alone. You should be ashamed of yourselves.Yes, we should. They're not dying fast enough!

[Dusk Eclipse]

Right here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#vulnerabilitytoCertainAttacks), under "Exploration/Breaking and Entering/Smashing an Object/Hit Points/Vulnerability to Certain Attacks"

How in the nine hells did I miss that.

[Gwendol]

I'm pretty sure you can't crit a rock any more than you can crit a golem. However:

Also, mining isn't handled by attack rolls, it's handled by Profession (miner)

Mining as in obtaining valuable metals and minerals from ore may be a profession but the act of breaking the rock should be the same. Double damage with a heavy pick still doesn't cut it. The most probable outcome of 2d6 is 7.

[Dusk Eclipse]

As per the Vulnerability to certain attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#vulnerabilitytoCertainAttacks) header, striking a rock with a pick should ignore the hardness and you are forgetting the Str bonus to damage, (likely +3 adjusted for two handing it). Stone "only " has 15 HP per inch so you can probably smash through it in a few rounds.

[Gwendol]

Yeah, it says "may". Guess it works then!?

Sundering armor? No?

[Jeff the Green]

Mining as in obtaining valuable metals and minerals from ore may be a profession but the act of breaking the rock should be the same. Double damage with a heavy pick still doesn't cut it. The most probable outcome of 2d6 is 7.

Check Races of the Dragon. Excavation is covered by Profession (miner).

[Gwendol]

Again, I was referring to the act of striking rock. Not the profession. The rules offer the possibility of ignoring hardness

[Shining Wrath]

Maybe all miners have a level in a ToB class and are using Mountain Hammer?

[nedz]

More importantly, the four elements theory (or its five elements theory counterpart in China) is wrong, but less wrong than the idea that everything is made up of unique substances. There are a limited number of elements that combine in different ways to produce all but a very few and very exotic substances in the universe. The Greek and Chinese philosophers just underestimated the number.

The Greek ones do approximate the four states of matter though Flame != Plasma. I'm not sure why the Chinese had two solid elements though ?

[Zombimode]

That's funny, even if the maths is total nonsense. This leads to the question of what attracted adventurers before there was an underdark society and ecology. A chicken-and-egg dilemma. An answer to such an dilemma is evolution from a previous system but what? Perhaps the underdark ecology sprang from the bodies of dead dwarven miners.

The Underdark emits a radiation. It is responsible for the changes in organisms that dwell there for extended periods of time (Elf -> Drow, Dwarf -> Duergar, etc.), in AD&D it powered the drow equipment (even if kept out of sunlight, in 2e drow gear would become useless when removed from the underdark, the missing radiation being called out as the reason), and it is not a really stretch to imagine it powers the ecosystem.

[hamishspence]

The Underdark emits a radiation. It is responsible for the changes in organisms that dwell there for extended periods of time (Elf -> Drow, Dwarf -> Duergar, etc.)
Later sources suggested that the drow (in Forgotten Realms at least and possibly Greyhawk as well) were transformed into their present form by the elven pantheon.

[Gwendol]

Maybe all miners have a level in a ToB class and are using Mountain Hammer?

LOL! The Stone Dragon mining company?

[Shining Wrath]

LOL! The Stone Dragon mining company?

Motto: "No stone too hard".

[warmachine]

Meh. I regard most sci fi as abuses of science and the Underdark powered by radiation is unscientific if no one can state what kind of radiation it is and where it comes from. Ionising radiation from radioactive minerals? Not a useful form and cancer inducing. Infrared from magma? Still need a heat sink for that temperature gradient.

[Fax Celestis]

Meh. I regard most sci fi as abuses of science and the Underdark powered by radiation is unscientific if no one can state what kind of radiation it is and where it comes from. Ionising radiation from radioactive minerals? Not a useful form and cancer inducing. Infrared from magma? Still need a heat sink for that temperature gradient.

I hear piles of dead catgirls make a pretty fine heatsink.

[georgie_leech]

Meh. I regard most sci fi as abuses of science and the Underdark powered by radiation is unscientific if no one can state what kind of radiation it is and where it comes from. Ionising radiation from radioactive minerals? Not a useful form and cancer inducing. Infrared from magma? Still need a heat sink for that temperature gradient.

"Radiation" as shorthand for an ill-defined quasi-energy with convenient properties, because "ill-defined quasi-energy with convenient properties" is cumbersome. It's not meant as a literal use of radiation as really exists.

[Milo v3]

Well... It's called Faerzress Radiation. Generated as either a side-effect of the magic that cause the underdark to be full of caverns and shaped as unrealistically as it is, or it is the direct result of elven high magic (so either a Wizard did it or an Elven Wizard did it). It somehow screws with divination and teleporting magic, and some plants can absorb it in a manner similiar to photosynthesis, which is meant to be the basis for the ecology of the underdark.

Also, it can mutate creatures but it's much more... "holywood radiation induced mutations" rather than say... cancer.

[Andvare]

Oooh, ooh, the neutrinos have mutated! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXqUcuE8fNo)

[Belial_the_Leveler]

It's obviously Cherenkov radiation. The radiation itself is not causing the problems; the subtle warping of spacetime does. The radiation simply exists because of the warping of spacetime, not the other way around.


Hence the whole teleportation/divination problem.

[warmachine]

Has anyone mentioned all the half breeds? Breeding between different species is not unheard of but only between very closely related species. Human and orc: plausible. Human and elf: the elven longevity suggests a very different, and therefore incompatible, physiology. Human and dragon: mammal and lizard, WTF?

[Jeff the Green]

Has anyone mentioned all the half breeds? Breeding between different species is not unheard of but only between very closely related species. Human and orc: plausible. Human and elf: the elven longevity suggests a very different, and therefore incompatible, physiology. Human and dragon: mammal and lizard, WTF?

Yeah, that's part of the reason I change demi-human lifespans to approximately that of a human. (The other part is that it makes history a mess otherwise.)

[Eldan]

Meh. I regard most sci fi as abuses of science and the Underdark powered by radiation is unscientific if no one can state what kind of radiation it is and where it comes from. Ionising radiation from radioactive minerals? Not a useful form and cancer inducing. Infrared from magma? Still need a heat sink for that temperature gradient.

Radiotrophic fungi are probably a thing. Just make a giant fantasy version. It's not entirely confirmed yet, but they seem to be able to use Melanin to capture Gamma radiation.

[Arkhosia]

Dodgeable fireballs.
Doesnt help that the Movies lie that way: the dog in Independence Day would be roasted.

Also, any light attacks being dodged
Lasers are light after all.

[LordChaos13]

Dodgeable fireballs.
Doesnt help that the Movies lie that way: the dog in Independence Day would be roasted.

Also, any light attacks being dodged
Lasers are light after all.

Are guns 100% accurate in your world? Because that moves Mach2 or more for a standard combat gun, way faster than a Human could avoid.
Also remember that an OLYMPIC ATHLETE is max lvl5/6, once your past there you just aren't Human, your Superhuman, dodging things too fast to see is perfectly acceptable when you kick logic to the curb and do the impossible

[warmachine]

The damage inflicted by arrows and other projectiles is not affected by range, even at extreme range, meaning their kinetic energy is not affected by air resistance.

[georgie_leech]

The damage inflicted by arrows and other projectiles is not affected by range, even at extreme range, meaning their kinetic energy is not affected by air resistance.

It could be compensated for by the idea that "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"

[atomicwaffle]

Chaos Beasts are pretty horrendous

[ShurikVch]

Dunno, if it was mentioned or not, but:
Inner planes.
Air and Water planes have no sun, but nothing says they are pitch black.
Infinite amount of earth/water/air have infinite mass and must generate infinitely high gravitation.

[LordChaos13]

Dunno, if it was mentioned or not, but:
Inner planes.
Air and Water planes have no sun, but nothing says they are pitch black.
Infinite amount of earth/water/air have infinite mass and must generate infinitely high gravitation.

Nowhere does it say Gravity is dependent on the amount of mass either
Also it's infinite in ALL directions. Even if Gravity is based on the mass of thing you'd end up with 0G as every direction pulled you equally and constantly

[ShurikVch]

Even if Gravity is based on the mass of thing you'd end up with 0G as every direction pulled you equally and constantly
Planes of Air and Water have Subjective Directional Gravity which I can generously consider an one weird way to describe 0G.
But Elemental Plane of Earth have Heavy Gravity. Why? Also, because Plane doesn't have any particular center, what is determine the direction of gravity?

[ahenobarbi]

Nowhere does it say Gravity is dependent on the amount of mass either
Also it's infinite in ALL directions. Even if Gravity is based on the mass of thing you'd end up with 0G as every direction pulled you equally and constantly

Uh-uh. No. That would be far more troublesome. Hopefully they just have "subjective" gravity.

[LordChaos13]

Thats what Im SAYING
Gravity in the elemental planes dont work via the gravity of our world
It is just a planar trait pointing in X direction (or whatever rule each plane has)

The Earth Plane has Heavy Gravity not because of all the mass, but because the Plane has that trait.
Remove all the earth and leave it a single ∞x∞x1 rectangle of rock, it will STILL be Heavy Gravity