Ethereal plane, three or four spatial dimensions?

[Naomi Li]

I've been reading up on the ethereal plane as well as the material and shadow planes, and there are only a few ways I can reconcile them.

1) The material (and shadow) planes cannot be truly infinite in size in at least one direction.

2) The ethereal plane is not actually bound to every point in the material/shadow planes.

3) The ethereal plane has four spatial dimensions.

4) My understanding of physics in the D&D universes is fundamentally flawed in some way.

The third possibility seems the most interesting, I think, and has all kinds of interesting implications for how things could work out. I'm imagining it as there being up/down, left/right, forward/backward as normal (or however you want to name them) as well as "materialward/"shadowward".

Any comments, corrections, suggestions for better names of the spatial dimensions, or whatever?

[Jack_Simth]

I've been reading up on the ethereal plane as well as the material and shadow planes, and there are only a few ways I can reconcile them.

1) The material (and shadow) planes cannot be truly infinite in size in at least one direction.

Mathamatically:
1) An infinite line (one dimension infinite) of mass gives you linear gravity (Weight of an object at distance D from the line is given by mK/D, where m is the mass of the object, K is a constant and depends on units). The line also does not collapse in on itself, as all gravity is balanced for every point of the line.
2) An infinite plane (two dimensions infinite) of mass gives you fixed gravity (Weight of an object at distance D from the plane is given by mK, where m is the mass of the object, K is a constant and depends on units - D doesn't enter into it). The plane also does not collapse in on itself, as all gravity is balanced for every point of the plane.
3) An infinite volume (three dimensions infinite) of mass gives you no gravity (no matter where you are, every particle is being pulled equally in all directions, so you feel nothing), and likewise does not collapse in on itself for the same reason.

So mathamatically speaking, there's no real problem with having an infinite plane.

What leads you to believe that the material and shadow planes must be limited?


2) The ethereal plane is not actually bound to every point in the material/shadow planes.

Any specific reason?


3) The ethereal plane has four spatial dimensions.

It might, but the deep ethereal is a variant, not the default.


4) My understanding of physics in the D&D universes is fundamentally flawed in some way.

At least part of that is because the physics in the D&D universes are fundamentally flawed in multiple ways.


The third possibility seems the most interesting, I think, and has all kinds of interesting implications for how things could work out. I'm imagining it as there being up/down, left/right, forward/backward as normal (or however you want to name them) as well as "materialward/"shadowward".

Any comments, corrections, suggestions for better names of the spatial dimensions, or whatever?Ana/kata is how I first encountered that in grade school.

[Drachasor]

4D is awkward. All your knots would become undone.

3D works. You can set a bounded arbitrarily-sized space to have a 1-1 correspondance to the prime material. The rest of the plane can go off somewhere else. You could even have multiple bounded regions with other regions without a 1-1 connection between them. Overall, there are lots of ways to handle this.

[OldTrees1]

I usually assume an infinite number of finite chunks of material plane/shadow plane that correspond 1:1:1 with the ethereal plane and are separated by bands of deep ethereal.

Remember both the shadow plane and the ethereal plane overlap the material plane in the 4th dimension (not a spacial nor a temporal dimension).

[Karmea]

Well yeah, 3rd edition did away with the Deep Ethereal as default, but the terms from planescape likened the Ethereal to an ocean: shore (border ethereal) and deep/depths (deep ethereal).

Check out A Guide to the Ethereal Plane if you can find it.

[Naomi Li]

Why those solutions are needed in some way:
1) The ethereal plane is "in-between" the material and shadow planes.
2) The ethereal plane, as described in Pathfinder at least, encompasses far more territory than that overlapping the material and shadow planes.
3) If the material and shadow planes are infinite in three spatial dimensions and the ethereal plane only exists within three spatial dimensions that are linked to every single point in the material and shadow planes, there doesn't appear to be any room for the unlinked areas at all.

[OldTrees1]

Why those solutions are needed in some way:
1) The ethereal plane is "in-between" the material and shadow planes.
2) The ethereal plane, as described in Pathfinder at least, encompasses far more territory than that overlapping the material and shadow planes.
3) If the material and shadow planes are infinite in three spatial dimensions and the ethereal plane only exists within three spatial dimensions that are linked to every single point in the material and shadow planes, there doesn't appear to be any room for the unlinked areas at all.

1 appears to be false. The Shadow and Ethereal planes are coterminous with the material plane. They share the same volume (with the exception of the optional add ons to the ethereal plane like the deep ethereal).

[Chronos]

The direction from the material plane to the ethereal plane (or vice-versa) does not correspond with any dimension within either plane: If it did, you could travel from one to the other simply by walking (or possibly flying). Each plane has the same three dimensions within it.

The astral plane, however, is at least nine-dimensional. Which really ought to drive most non-native creatures insane, without some sort of magical protection. I've been meaning to write up some houserules about that.

[Naomi Li]

1 appears to be false. The Shadow and Ethereal planes are coterminous with the material plane. They share the same volume (with the exception of the optional add ons to the ethereal plane like the deep ethereal).

While this is most certainly true, one must remember that everything is written from a material-plane centric viewpoint. The ethereal plane is certainly coexistent with every point in the material and shadow planes, but that does NOT mean that every point in the ethereal plane is linked to a point in the shadow and material planes. In fact, it is explicit that this is NOT the case in at least some settings.


The direction from the material plane to the ethereal plane (or vice-versa) does not correspond with any dimension within either plane: If it did, you could travel from one to the other simply by walking (or possibly flying). Each plane has the same three dimensions within it.

One can travel to the "border" regions of the ethereal plane and reach where it overlaps with the material and shadow planes. If one has the proper magic they can take the next "step" and be in it, but that last distance cannot be bridged by mundane travel for whatever reasons.


The astral plane, however, is at least nine-dimensional. Which really ought to drive most non-native creatures insane, without some sort of magical protection. I've been meaning to write up some houserules about that.

That would be rather interesting. Haven't studied the astral plane much. Source of it having at least nine dimensions?

[OldTrees1]

The astral plane, however, is at least nine-dimensional. Which really ought to drive most non-native creatures insane, without some sort of magical protection. I've been meaning to write up some houserules about that.

9? I count 6 (3 spacial dimensions and the 3d arrangement of the planes)
Although the 3d arrangement of the planes could easily be accomplished within the 3 spacial dimensions since the astral plane does not connect 1:1 with other planes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's a couple flaws in your thinking here.

Here's what's correct, as far as I understand it.

1) The ethereal and shadow planes are coexistent and coterminous with the material at all points.

2) The ethereal and shadow planes have -no- connection to each other.

3) The material is -not- coexistent or coterminous with either the ethereal or shadow plane in all places -if- the deep ethereal and/or deep shadow are in play.

4) If those options are in play then traveling in the fourth dimension of the ethereal, going from the border to the deep ethereal or vice-versa, is possible as an act of will. I'm a bit unclear on how to get to the parts of the shadow plane that aren't coexistent with the material. Lack of description for the process and the plane's naturally fluid nature lead me to believe it's simply a matter of knowing the right paths to walk.

5) Don't try to understand the physics of D&D. It's not the same as the physics of reality, certain contradictions necessitate that it cannot be, it's only close enough to be easily recognizable at the superficial level. This goes octuple, at least, for any plane beyond the material. Objective directional gravity alone simply does not make -any- sense by the rules of physics as we understand it, nevermind subjective directional. Seriously, just don't.

[Naomi Li]

2) The ethereal and shadow planes have -no- connection to each other.

Where did you get this? It appears to be completely contradictory to essentially everything I have read about how the planes interact. The ethereal plane is in between the material and shadow planes. The material plane is not between the ethereal and shadow. There are also very explicit (though certainly much rarer due to the material plane centric view) mentions of using the ethereal plane to reach the shadow plane.



3) The material is -not- coexistent or coterminous with either the ethereal or shadow plane in all places -if- the deep ethereal and/or deep shadow are in play.

In the sense that there isn't a distinct 1:1:0.25 correlation between them at all times, sure, but there is still that 1:1:0.25 correlation for every point that exists within the material plane.




4) If those options are in play then traveling in the fourth dimension of the ethereal, going from the border to the deep ethereal or vice-versa, is possible as an act of will. I'm a bit unclear on how to get to the parts of the shadow plane that aren't coexistent with the material. Lack of description for the process and the plane's naturally fluid nature lead me to believe it's simply a matter of knowing the right paths to walk.


Since the shadow plane is a dark mirror of the material plane I believe it has planets, some form of gravity wells instead of stars, etc. The matter is certainly less stable, but it IS supposed to be a mirror to the material plane.



5) Don't try to understand the physics of D&D. It's not the same as the physics of reality, certain contradictions necessitate that it cannot be, it's only close enough to be easily recognizable at the superficial level. This goes octuple, at least, for any plane beyond the material. Objective directional gravity alone simply does not make -any- sense by the rules of physics as we understand it, nevermind subjective directional. Seriously, just don't.

I think I'm going to absolutely ignore this one. Yes, things are very very different from our reality and some parts need to be changed so that they're internally consistent, but internal consistency is still possible. Besides, I think it's fun trying to work all of this out.

[Drachasor]

Again, 4 dimensions doesn't work. Your clothes would fall apart, your shoelaces would become undone, your armor would fall off. Knots don't work in 4D.


Where did you get this? It appears to be completely contradictory to essentially everything I have read about how the planes interact. The ethereal plane is in between the material and shadow planes. The material plane is not between the ethereal and shadow. There are also very explicit (though certainly much rarer due to the material plane centric view) mentions of using the ethereal plane to reach the shadow plane.

I haven't heard or read this anywhere that I recall. Page 137 of the Planar Handbook doesn't indicate this. Page 151 and 152 of the DMG don't indicate it either. Everything in fact indicates that the Prime is in fact between the Shadow and Ethereal Planes.

[Naomi Li]

Again, 4 dimensions doesn't work. Your clothes would fall apart, your shoelaces would become undone, your armor would fall off. Knots don't work in 4D.

That works entirely under the assumption that the transition from the material plane to the ethereal plane wouldn't fix that problem, and that the problem exists in the first place. All it requires is for the fourth spatial dimension to "exist" in the material plane as a single "layer" where, for whatever reason, those problems are resolved.

It's a weird universe, certainly, the laws of physics there are not even close to the laws of physics here, and the humans there are completely alien to us in capabilities. It can still function.

[Duke of Urrel]

3) The ethereal plane has four spatial dimensions.

If there is a Deep Ethereal, then yes, the Ethereal Plane has four spatial dimensions by my count. And I have absolutely no problem with that.

When we try to visualize the Planes of Existence using our mind's eye, there are two problems.


One is that our minds have a hard time visualizing anything except in three-dimensional space that persists in time. Modern theoretical physics has opened up to the speculation that our universe may have more than four dimensions, possibly many more. But it makes our head hurt to try to visualize space-time other than as three-dimensional space persisting in time. This is why such multi-dimensional conceptions of space-time can't be depicted except with highly abstract, non-representational schematic diagrams, which rely heavily on symbols.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) famously declared that our ordinary human perspectives on space and time (which he called "Anschauungen") actually belong to the structure of our minds and not to the universe itself (a.k.a. the "thing in itself," Kant's "Ding an sich"). Therefore, Kant argued, we may not be able to visualize the universe as it really is. So we shouldn't be concerned that just because we aren't able to picture a multi-dimensional universe in our minds, therefore the universe itself must be limited to those dimensions that we can easily imagine or see with our mind's eye.


Secondly, don't forget that when we play D&D, the real universe, whether understood according to the common layperson's perspective or according to the theories of speculative physics, has been abandoned and left far behind us. Maybe when you visit the Ethereal Plane, a whole new perspective on space opens up in your mind, so that you can see clearly in which direction the Deep Ethereal lies (according to one variant cosmology). The same thing may happen on the Plane of Shadow, with its Deep Shadow connection to alternative Material Planes (according to one variant cosmology). Maybe a visit to the Astral Plane is an even more mind-stretching experience, as Chronos and OldTrees1 suggest.

[Drachasor]

That works entirely under the assumption that the transition from the material plane to the ethereal plane wouldn't fix that problem, and that the problem exists in the first place. All it requires is for the fourth spatial dimension to "exist" in the material plane as a single "layer" where, for whatever reason, those problems are resolved.

It's a weird universe, certainly, the laws of physics there are not even close to the laws of physics here, and the humans there are completely alien to us in capabilities. It can still function.

Planar Layers are different but related planes. It doesn't really make sense to talk about them as a fourth dimension; they are not one.

If you are talking about an actual spatial dimension, then the lack of knots is simple mathematics and doesn't have anything to do with real-world physics. I'm not sure why you'd think I was referring to real-world physics here, since the real world only has 3 spatial dimensions.

[Naomi Li]

Planar Layers are different but related planes. It doesn't really make sense to talk about them as a fourth dimension; they are not one.

If you are talking about an actual spatial dimension, then the lack of knots is simple mathematics and doesn't have anything to do with real-world physics. I'm not sure why you'd think I was referring to real-world physics here, since the real world only has 3 spatial dimensions.

I'm only talking about the relation between the material, shadow, and material planes as being a fourth spatial dimension as seen from the perspective of the ethereal plane.

Well, for one thing, we have no proof that there are only three spatial dimensions on Earth. I am unaware of the math that says that a three dimensional knot existing in a four-dimensional plane is absolutely impossible, nor one that says that a four-dimensional knot cannot exist in a four-dimensional plane.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Where did you get this? It appears to be completely contradictory to essentially everything I have read about how the planes interact. The ethereal plane is in between the material and shadow planes. The material plane is not between the ethereal and shadow. There are also very explicit (though certainly much rarer due to the material plane centric view) mentions of using the ethereal plane to reach the shadow plane.

I got it from the Manual of the Planes. The book that describes the 3.5 cosmology in greater detail than any other supplement for the system. What you describe may have been how it worked in 2E but that's not how it works now.

Here;


From the plane of shadow to the ethereal plane or vice-versa: In the D&D cosmology, these to planes are coexistent with the material plane, but not with each other.




In the sense that there isn't a distinct 1:1:0.25 correlation between them at all times, sure, but there is still that 1:1:0.25 correlation for every point that exists within the material plane.

See above.



Since the shadow plane is a dark mirror of the material plane I believe it has planets, some form of gravity wells instead of stars, etc. The matter is certainly less stable, but it IS supposed to be a mirror to the material plane.

It's not just matter but the space itself that flows. You can go -any- distance on the material by traveling 5 hours on the plane of shadow. There's not even any implication that the terrain you travel in the space between where you left and where you're going will mirror the intervening space on the material, though those two points necessarily must. It's just weird that way.




I think I'm going to absolutely ignore this one. Yes, things are very very different from our reality and some parts need to be changed so that they're internally consistent, but internal consistency is still possible. Besides, I think it's fun trying to work all of this out.

I'm all ears if you can come up with explanations for any of the following:

1) Solid fire, as in anything made on the elemental plane of fire out of its native material

2) Solid air, as in the fact that an air elemental is completely solid to blows with a stick even though it's made up entirely of atmosphere.

3) Negative light that doesn't annihilate normal light on contact and somehow brightens pitch black locations; darkness descriptor spell effects.

4) Gravity with normal, earth-like strength emanating from a rock 10ft in radius that does not pull a near identical rock only a few hundred feet away even though they're both just ordinary, unremarkable stone with a void of -hundreds- of miles of empty space around the two of them.

5) How there's any gravity at all in a plane that is an infinite amount of stone and earth in all directions, much less double earth-like gravity pulling universally in the same relative direction throughout.

6) Naturally occurring negative gravity. (not exemplified in any published setting but an explicitly listed option for objective directional gravity)

7) This is a real killer; gravity whose directionality is determined by the will of sentient creatures but only for that individual creature.

8) How the heck time works in a universe where it flows the same as it does in the material plane, except for the effect it has on creatures; the astral.

9) What the crap is astral ectoplasm? It's not matter or energy but it's not light either.

10) The fact that outer planes are composed of morality and ethics concentrated into physical matter and energy.

11) Anything else you can think of that doesn't make sense by the laws of RL physics.

Most of these would require you make Einstein look like half-retarded monkey to give satisfactory answers that the scientific community would even consider. It's just not worth the absurd degree of effort.

[Drachasor]

I'm only talking about the relation between the material, shadow, and material planes as being a fourth spatial dimension as seen from the perspective of the ethereal plane.

Well, for one thing, we have no proof that there are only three spatial dimensions on Earth. I am unaware of the math that says that a three dimensional knot existing in a four-dimensional plane is absolutely impossible, nor one that says that a four-dimensional knot cannot exist in a four-dimensional plane.

No offense, but that's sloppy language. It is not a 4th spatial dimension; you only have 3 points here and a dimension needs more than that. The Prime is simply coexistent with the Ethereal and Shadow Plane, there's no 4th dimension there in any meaningful sense. And I don't see how the perspective of the ethereal plane is any different than the others here.

We have no proof you aren't a pink unicorn with magical powers, but all evidence points to this not being the case. The evidence in favor of 3 spatial dimensions is even stronger.

As for knots, look up knot theory. A 4th dimension makes it so you can't have real knots. The extra dimension means any 3D knot you make can fall lose in the 4th dimension. Here's a simple way to imagine it using D&D rules that doesn't even require a real 4th dimension. Let's say you have a knot on the prime. There's nothing that keeps it together if parts of it can become ethereal when you apply force. Start pulling on the knot and it will come undone as anything keeping it tight will cause it to slip through the ethereal and loosen. Anyhow, knot theory has proved you can't have 4D knots.

[Naomi Li]

No offense, but that's sloppy language. It is not a 4th spatial dimension; you only have 3 points here and a dimension needs more than that. The Prime is simply coexistent with the Ethereal and Shadow Plane, there's no 4th dimension there in any meaningful sense. And I don't see how the perspective of the ethereal plane is any different than the others here.

It's simple. While there may well be a few definitions of the ethereal plane where it does NOT extend beyond where it overlaps with the material/shadow planes, in several others it explicitly DOES. There's not three points, there's one point for the material, one for the shadow, and quite possibly infinite for the ethereal in between them.



We have no proof you aren't a pink unicorn with magical powers, but all evidence points to this not being the case. The evidence in favor of 3 spatial dimensions is even stronger.

You have any evidence at all that I am not a pink unicorn? At most I would think you have evidence that most known Internet users are human and that there is an absence of evidence that pink unicorns with any abilities that could be called "magical" exist.



As for knots, look up knot theory. A 4th dimension makes it so you can't have real knots. The extra dimension means any 3D knot you make can fall lose in the 4th dimension. Here's a simple way to imagine it using D&D rules that doesn't even require a real 4th dimension. Let's say you have a knot on the prime. There's nothing that keeps it together if parts of it can become ethereal when you apply force. Start pulling on the knot and it will come undone as anything keeping it tight will cause it to slip through the ethereal and loosen. Anyhow, knot theory has proved you can't have 4D knots.

If they're magically "capped" along the fourth dimension so that that force is resisted then I don't see why it would be a problem. There are probably several other solutions to such a problem, too. Maybe I'm missing a lot because I haven't read up on the subject much and suck at several of the prerequisites for this, but I don't see why there couldn't be solutions to the problems being invented. Especially since this is absolutely NOT our universe being discussed but one where the laws of physics aren't the lowest level underlying reality even on the material plane.


I got it from the Manual of the Planes. The book that describes the 3.5 cosmology in greater detail than any other supplement for the system. What you describe may have been how it worked in 2E but that's not how it works now.


Huh. That's... most certainly not how it's described in Pathfinder. Conversations about the planes becomes rather difficult when they change a bunch of details with every universe.



It's not just matter but the space itself that flows. You can go -any- distance on the material by traveling 5 hours on the plane of shadow. There's not even any implication that the terrain you travel in the space between where you left and where you're going will mirror the intervening space on the material, though those two points necessarily must. It's just weird that way
.
I'm inclined to think that that is "any distance on the material plane within the same planet", with the people who wrote that not really thinking about the implications of "travel anywhere in the universe" properly.





I'm all ears if you can come up with explanations for any of the following:

1) Solid fire, as in anything made on the elemental plane of fire out of its native material


It's either a plasma or some form of bound heat that is NOT composed of matter of any sort.



2) Solid air, as in the fact that an air elemental is completely solid to blows with a stick even though it's made up entirely of atmosphere.


The soul of the entity binds the mass together in some way that can directly interact with matter, possibly via normal electrons or some effect that works similarly.



3) Negative light that doesn't annihilate normal light on contact and somehow brightens pitch black locations; darkness descriptor spell effects.


Wait, there's normal anti-light that DOESN'T annihilate light on contact? Where? I'm rather unfamiliar with what you're talking about, here. As for darkness descriptor spells: Like everything else about light, poorly written rules for how light functions because it's not considered a major part of the game and they wanted everything about it to be resolved quickly.



4) Gravity with normal, earth-like strength emanating from a rock 10ft in radius that does not pull a near identical rock only a few hundred feet away even though they're both just ordinary, unremarkable stone with a void of -hundreds- of miles of empty space around the two of them.


It's not gravity as talked about in physics, just a continuous force of some sort that acts much like it. There are several possible reasons why they don't interact with each other, including that their gravity falls off exceptionally rapidly, they're "pulling" on each other but something else is holding them in place, or maybe they're transparent to each other's pseudo-gravity for some reason.



5) How there's any gravity at all in a plane that is an infinite amount of stone and earth in all directions, much less double earth-like gravity pulling universally in the same relative direction throughout.


Again, it's pseudo-gravity derived not by mass but instead by a definition of the plane as created by the (rather quirky) designers of the realm.



6) Naturally occurring negative gravity. (not exemplified in any published setting but an explicitly listed option for objective directional gravity)


Pseudo-gravity like this can have all kinds of interesting properties.



7) This is a real killer; gravity whose directionality is determined by the will of sentient creatures but only for that individual creature.


It's not real gravity, it is defined as always having that "gravity", but the definition for the realm does NOT require it to be in any particular direction. So, a quick mental effort can switch the definition of it around quite readily. Or perhaps it is only defined as being required for people, or conscious minds, or something. It isn't even close to physics, but physics is not the underlying reality here.



8) How the heck time works in a universe where it flows the same as it does in the material plane, except for the effect it has on creatures; the astral.


I believe this is a case where time DOES exist, but biological processes are forcefully suspended in some way. Thus, when they leave, the suspended processes (partially) happen, including aging. It's... extremely weird, really, but isn't COMPLETELY insane.



9) What the crap is astral ectoplasm? It's not matter or energy but it's not light either.


It's ectoplasm, its own type of existence. What its properties are I do not know, but it would be interesting to study.



10) The fact that outer planes are composed of morality and ethics concentrated into physical matter and energy.


I'm inclined to think that they're less made up of morality/ethics as they are deeply tied to certain emotions and beliefs that are associated with morality/ethics. As for those having an objective reality that can interact with the existence of other things (I really am not sure that they're composed of "matter", per se) is another weird quirk of the universe.



11) Anything else you can think of that doesn't make sense by the laws of RL physics.


Well, it's NOT our universe and the fundamental underlying truths of it are completely different. Thus you get some really, REALLY weird results the more you study it, but internal sense of it can be acquired.



Most of these would require you make Einstein look like half-retarded monkey to give satisfactory answers that the scientific community would even consider. It's just not worth the absurd degree of effort.

Well, it doesn't make any sense going by our models of physics, sure, because our models measure our universe. You would need to make entirely new models for this universe, possibly even completely different models for every plane and planar crossing. However, considering cause and effect still function and the scientific method still works (even if there are a lot of variables in play that cannot be readily studied) the scientific community would have to be insane to NOT accept the things that their studies would clearly indicate.

[Drachasor]

I feel like you either aren't reading the thread or just ignoring anything you don't understand (without asking for clarification). Not sure there's a reason to continue the discussion at this point.

Btw, again, knots not working in 4D is simple mathematics and has nothing to do with our laws of physics. And yes, your lack of knowledge about the math is clearly making it hard for you to understand, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you from declaring that math doesn't really matter.

PS. Yes, PF changes a lot of things for little to no reason. Anything you know to be true in PF or 3.5 you should always double check before assuming it applies to the other.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Huh. That's... most certainly not how it's described in Pathfinder. Conversations about the planes becomes rather difficult when they change a bunch of details with every universe.

Ah, there's your problem. Pathfinder's not even just a separate setting it's technically a different, but compatible, system. In any case, the cosmologies of -all- of the published settings differ from one another. It's no wonder you're getting confused.



Well, it doesn't make any sense going by our models of physics, sure, because our models measure our universe. You would need to make entirely new models for this universe, possibly even completely different models for every plane and planar crossing. However, considering cause and effect still function and the scientific method still works (even if there are a lot of variables in play that cannot be readily studied) the scientific community would have to be insane to NOT accept the things that their studies would clearly indicate.

Ignoring the rest of it, how is this any different from "Don't try to bring RL physics into D&D?" Any assumption you make about how physics works, including calling on RL physics, is essentially arbitrary and completely untestable since there's no actual phenomenon to test.

Btw light thing was talking about spells with the darkness descriptor. The target point or object radiates something that behaves like light except that it moves the ambient light level toward a specific point, regardless of whether it has to go up or down to reach that point. It's just freakin' weird.

[Naomi Li]

I feel like you either aren't reading the thread or just ignoring anything you don't understand (without asking for clarification). Not sure there's a reason to continue the discussion at this point.

Btw, again, knots not working in 4D is simple mathematics and has nothing to do with our laws of physics. And yes, your lack of knowledge about the math is clearly making it hard for you to understand, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you from declaring that math doesn't really matter.

PS. Yes, PF changes a lot of things for little to no reason. Anything you know to be true in PF or 3.5 you should always double check before assuming it applies to the other.

1) Math declares that a three-dimensional knot would easily collapse in a four-dimensional space.
2) A knot is taken to the ethereal plane (that appears to have four spatial dimensions in at least some of the universes) and either continues to function (for any of a large number of potential reasons) or falls apart.
3) Because knots don't work, you declare that there cannot be four spatial dimensions in the ethereal plane

It's step three that I object to, along with the part of step 2 that says (or at least seems to strongly imply) that there is NO solution that could possibly exist even when the universes in question are explicitly REALLY weird in what's possible.



Ah, there's your problem. Pathfinder's not even just a separate setting it's technically a different, but compatible, system. In any case, the cosmologies of -all- of the published settings differ from one another. It's no wonder you're getting confused.


Same with 2E, 3.0E, 4E, and all of the others. Heck, even a lot of the campaign settings change things up quite a bit.



Ignoring the rest of it, how is this any different from "Don't try to bring RL physics into D&D?" Any assumption you make about how physics works, including calling on RL physics, is essentially arbitrary and completely untestable since there's no actual phenomenon to test.


The difference is I am not saying "don't bring up RL physics" but instead "don't try to confine everything to RL physics then declare it's stupid/nonsensical because it doesn't fit". RL physics has its place for some parts of it, but when it explicitly diverges from RL physics (alternate planes, non-matter material, magic, people being capable of superhuman feats) it has to be taken on its own merits and create internal logic.




Btw light thing was talking about spells with the darkness descriptor. The target point or object radiates something that behaves like light except that it moves the ambient light level toward a specific point, regardless of whether it has to go up or down to reach that point. It's just freakin' weird.

Yeah, that's REALLY weird. Don't think it works that way under Pathfinder, at least. Could be a "set light level to X" type of thing with some form of magical sensor that adjusts the light/anti-light produced depending on what's around. Though why a mage would design it like that has some interesting possibilities. Or it's a REALLY badly thought out approximation for how things really work.

[Drachasor]

1) Math declares that a three-dimensional knot would easily collapse in a four-dimensional space.
2) A knot is taken to the ethereal plane (that appears to have four spatial dimensions in at least some of the universes) and either continues to function (for any of a large number of potential reasons) or falls apart.
3) Because knots don't work, you declare that there cannot be four spatial dimensions in the ethereal plane

It's step three that I object to, along with the part of step 2 that says (or at least seems to strongly imply) that there is NO solution that could possibly exist even when the universes in question are explicitly REALLY weird in what's possible.

No. That's not it at all.

You're the one saying the Ethereal needs a fourth spatial dimension. We've already provided several ways that it doesn't, to say nothing of how the rules lend no support to the idea that it is a 4D space. You're assuming there's four dimensions and then using that assumption to prove it must have four dimensions. This is a logical fallacy.

And math on knot theory is that anything with more than 3 dimensions can't have knots. It isn't just that a 3D knot falls apart, it is that you can't make a knot at all in 4D or 4+D space. Pull both ends of any configuration and the "knot" becomes undone. That's just how the basic geometry would work. So based on that I've said it doesn't make much sense to have a 4D Ethereal; it's not workable. I didn't use it to say the Ethereal isn't 4D because I don't have to -- the rules would have to say it is 4D and they don't. I'm just saying that it falls apart as a house rule.

And "somehow it must work because I would like it to" is not an argument. Might as well declare that 1+1 = 4 on the Ethereal.

[Duke of Urrel]

4D is awkward. All your knots would become undone.

Again, 4 dimensions doesn't work. Your clothes would fall apart, your shoelaces would become undone, your armor would fall off. Knots don't work in 4D.

If you are talking about an actual spatial dimension, then the lack of knots is simple mathematics and doesn't have anything to do with real-world physics. I'm not sure why you'd think I was referring to real-world physics here, since the real world only has 3 spatial dimensions.

Planar Layers are different but related planes. It doesn't really make sense to talk about them as a fourth dimension; they are not one.

You may be right about real-world physics and real-world geometry, Drachasor. But we left all those things behind when we entered the world of D&D. We can apply real-world perspectives to the Material Plane (to a limited degree, at least), but when we leave it and enter any one of the Transitive Planes (the Ethereal, the Astral, or the Plane of Shadow), we must be prepared to expect the unexpected.

I see no reason why a four-dimensional space in fantasy should prohibit the tying of knots. Indeed, I would imagine that four-dimensional space makes knot-tying even easier, because you don't actually have to bend the rope to do it. Just bend the space around the rope! With enough Knowledge of the Planes, I'm sure this can be done.

I fully endorse Kelb Panthera's argument that when you're on a four-dimensional Ethereal Plane, "it's simply a matter of knowing the right paths to walk." On a four-dimensional Ethereal Plane, you have more directions to choose from than up, down, left, right, forward, and backward. You can also move toward or away from the Material Plane itself. When you move away from the Material Plane, you become aware of this as the creatures and objects of the Material Plane – which you can still see when you're in the part of the Ethereal Plane that overlaps with it – become even more translucent and blurred, until finally they vanish altogether. That's when you know you have entered the Deep Ethereal.

I'll admit that when we encounter creatures and objects on the Transitive Planes, we have to pause in our speculative fantasy physics and return to three dimensions, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to apply the combat rules of the game, in particular the rules for three-dimensional movement. But I think we all agree on this.

[Naomi Li]

No. That's not it at all.

You're the one saying the Ethereal needs a fourth spatial dimension. We've already provided several ways that it doesn't, to say nothing of how the rules lend no support to the idea that it is a 4D space. You're assuming there's four dimensions and then using that assumption to prove it must have four dimensions. This is a logical fallacy.

And math on knot theory is that anything with more than 3 dimensions can't have knots. It isn't just that a 3D knot falls apart, it is that you can't make a knot at all in 4D or 4+D space. Pull both ends of any configuration and the "knot" becomes undone. That's just how the basic geometry would work. So based on that I've said it doesn't make much sense to have a 4D Ethereal; it's not workable. I didn't use it to say the Ethereal isn't 4D because I don't have to -- the rules would have to say it is 4D and they don't. I'm just saying that it falls apart as a house rule.

And "somehow it must work because I would like it to" is not an argument. Might as well declare that 1+1 = 4 on the Ethereal.

Given the following FACTS for at least some universes, what alternatives do you actually have other than four spatial dimensions in the ethereal plane? (I note that you did raise a few, but there is absolutely zero support for them that I am aware of for them other than "they function", thus making them AS legitimate as the four spatial dimension theory, not superior. Still, one can come up with some very interesting possibilities. What causes the ratios to vary could have very notable implications)

1) There is a 1:1:0.25 correlation between the material, ethereal, and shadow planes for the regions in which they overlap.
2) The material plane is truly infinite in all spatial dimensions.
3) There is a much larger portion of the ethereal plane than that which overlaps with the material and shadow planes.

Even IF knots cannot function in four dimensional space, why is that a reason to declare that the ethereal plane cannot have four spatial dimensions? There's no rule that says "knots function in the ethereal plane". And if there were, I am fairly sure one can invent some sort of reason for how it could function outside of the normal demands of physics.




I'll admit that when we encounter creatures and objects on the Transitive Planes, we have to pause in our speculative fantasy physics and return to three dimensions, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to apply the combat rules of the game, in particular the rules for three-dimensional movement. But I think we all agree on this.

Well, I'm not so certain of that. It's the easiest solution, certainly, much like the three-dimensional combat rules aren't really about three dimensional combat. However, one could probably transform the three dimensional combat rules into four dimensional combat rules without all that much effort. How playable it would be I am unsure.

[Duke of Urrel]

However, one could probably transform the three dimensional combat rules into four dimensional combat rules without all that much effort. How playable it would be I am unsure.

I will concede your point, particularly when what we're talking about is evasion and pursuit. I can imagine that when you're in the Deep Ethereal being pursued by a monster you'd rather not fight, you might want to flee in a direction toward the Material Plane – let's call it "inward." And as the monster pursues you, it might draw closer to you along the outward-inward axis, rather than along any line in ordinary three-dimensional space (namely, the lines of up-down, left-right, and forward-backward). But if the monster catches up with you and you suddenly need to start moving tactically to hit and to avoid being hit, I think the addition of the outward-inward axis to our ordinary three dimensions creates more of a headache than it's worth.

Postscript: It occurs to me that tactically speaking, a monster might want to position itself between you and the Material Plane to block your escape to it. So I suppose I must concede your point even further. Even in combat, the inward-outward axis on the Deep Ethereal might be an important one to keep in the game. But in this situation, I think it's permissible to leave out one of the ordinary three dimensions – such as the backward-forward line – because if you're headed toward the Material Plane and a monster is chasing you, the only "backward" and "forward" that matter to you are the two opposite directions along the inward-outward axis. In this manner, we can even play on the usual game grid, only with the vertical longitudinal lines representing the inward-outward axis rather than North-South.

[Chronos]

You can have knots in a higher-dimensional space just fine. You just have to tie them in cloth instead of in ropes.


Quoth OldTrees1:

9? I count 6 (3 spacial dimensions and the 3d arrangement of the planes)
Although the 3d arrangement of the planes could easily be accomplished within the 3 spacial dimensions since the astral plane does not connect 1:1 with other planes.
The "3d arrangement of the planes" isn't actually 3d, it's 6d. For the sake of simplicity, suppose we start at the material plane, and can travel fully freely in any astral dimension. There's one dimension along which we can reach the ethereal by going one way, and the plane of shadow the other way. There's a second dimension by which we can reach positive energy one way, and negative the other. There's a third by which we reach earth one way, and air the other. There's a fourth by which we can reach fire one way, and water the other. There's a fifth by which we can reach Mechanus one way, and Limbo the other. And there's a sixth by which we can reach Elysium one way, and Hades the other. And of course, there are three other dimensions along which we can travel, that won't bring us to any other plane at all, but just to different points in the same plane. All of these dimensions are orthogonal: When one travels from Material to Negative Energy, for instance, one hasn't gotten any closer to Hades.

[OldTrees1]

You can have knots in a higher-dimensional space just fine. You just have to tie them in cloth instead of in ropes.


The "3d arrangement of the planes" isn't actually 3d, it's 6d. For the sake of simplicity, suppose we start at the material plane, and can travel fully freely in any astral dimension. There's one dimension along which we can reach the ethereal by going one way, and the plane of shadow the other way. There's a second dimension by which we can reach positive energy one way, and negative the other. There's a third by which we reach earth one way, and air the other. There's a fourth by which we can reach fire one way, and water the other. There's a fifth by which we can reach Mechanus one way, and Limbo the other. And there's a sixth by which we can reach Elysium one way, and Hades the other. And of course, there are three other dimensions along which we can travel, that won't bring us to any other plane at all, but just to different points in the same plane. All of these dimensions are orthogonal: When one travels from Material to Negative Energy, for instance, one hasn't gotten any closer to Hades.

If you, on the astral plane, continue past the inner planes you reach the pools to the great wheel. (hence the term "inner")

Since it is a Tuesday of the 231 year of the Era, the pool to Mechanus is 5 degrees Fire-ward and 23 degrees Positive-ward of Earth-ward but beyond the inner planes belt.

[Naomi Li]

I wouldn't be surprised if the arrangement of the planes was mostly for philosophical/religious/artistic reasons rather than any actual spatial relationship between them. For one thing, don't all four of the elemental planes flow into each other?

In general, I think the planar links have more to do with planar resonance rather than spatial relationships. Stars and volcanoes are linked to the elemental plane of fire because they're closer to elemental fire than anything else, not because of where they are.

[OldTrees1]

I wouldn't be surprised if the arrangement of the planes was mostly for philosophical/religious/artistic reasons rather than any actual spatial relationship between them. For one thing, don't all four of the elemental planes flow into each other?

In general, I think the planar links have more to do with planar resonance rather than spatial relationships. Stars and volcanoes are linked to the elemental plane of fire because they're closer to elemental fire than anything else, not because of where they are.

All 18 official inner planes flow into one another. All 26 (including the 8 unofficial) inner planes flow into one another.

[Naomi Li]

All 18 official inner planes flow into one another. All 26 (including the 8 unofficial) inner planes flow into one another.

If that's the case I really don't see how the arrangement of the planes makes any sense at all unless portals between certain planes forms far more easily, and at certain points only.

I'm going with artistic/philosophical arrangement, mostly.

[Zweisteine]

As a serious suggestion, I suggest you bring all of the questions/disagreements this thread has brought up and take them to Afroakuma's Planar Questions Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317316&page=27). He knows virtually everything there is to know about the planes.


Personally, this is how I've always imagined the shadow, material, and ethereal planes. Space is visibly three-dimensional. There are, of course, other dimensions, which we cannot see. The fourth dimension (ignoring time) is the one that allows for locations to overlap, in the same time. Imagine space, but with one dimension stripped away. It is now a flat image, infinitely wide, of the universe. Now imagine the ethereal and shadow planes as similar images, above and below the material plane.

When you bring the other inner planes into it, it gets harder to imagine as a physical object. I imagine each plane as a sphere, and just accept that all of the inner planes occupy the same space at the same time.

[The Grue]

3) If the material and shadow planes are infinite in three spatial dimensions and the ethereal plane only exists within three spatial dimensions that are linked to every single point in the material and shadow planes, there doesn't appear to be any room for the unlinked areas at all.

Here's the thing about infinity: it's infinite.

There exists an infinite set of numbers between the values 2 and 3; 2.1, 2.11, 2.111 etc. But although this set is infinite, none of these numbers are 4.

"Infinite" is not the same as "all-encompassing". It's entirely mathematically possible for one set of infinities to contain "more" stuff than another set, ie for the infinite ethereal plane to contain space coterminous with all points of the infinite material plane, in addition to an infinite area of space that is not.

[OldTrees1]

If that's the case I really don't see how the arrangement of the planes makes any sense at all unless portals between certain planes forms far more easily, and at certain points only.

I'm going with artistic/philosophical arrangement, mostly.

The inner planes form a sphere where each primary plane (Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Positive, Negative) has 1 intermediary plane between it and any of the other primary planes (except its opposite). [A Rubik Cube without the corners or center]

The unofficial version of the inner planes makes even more sense [A Rubik Cube without the center]

[Baroknik]

No. That's not it at all.

You're the one saying the Ethereal needs a fourth spatial dimension. We've already provided several ways that it doesn't, to say nothing of how the rules lend no support to the idea that it is a 4D space. You're assuming there's four dimensions and then using that assumption to prove it must have four dimensions. This is a logical fallacy.

And math on knot theory is that anything with more than 3 dimensions can't have knots. It isn't just that a 3D knot falls apart, it is that you can't make a knot at all in 4D or 4+D space. Pull both ends of any configuration and the "knot" becomes undone. That's just how the basic geometry would work. So based on that I've said it doesn't make much sense to have a 4D Ethereal; it's not workable. I didn't use it to say the Ethereal isn't 4D because I don't have to -- the rules would have to say it is 4D and they don't. I'm just saying that it falls apart as a house rule.

And "somehow it must work because I would like it to" is not an argument. Might as well declare that 1+1 = 4 on the Ethereal.

Though I don't study knot theory specifically, I do want to point out that a mathematical knot is different than a vernacular knot.

All mathematical knots are based on circles, any non-closed linear starting point is always an unknot.

Therefore your shoelaces? An unknot.
The riggings on a ship? An unknot.

While all mathematical knots CAN be unfolded in R4, that doesn't mean that they would fall apart from slight forces or that they wouldn't be considered to be still knots to vernacular speakers!

Think of it this way,
If your shoelaces are Unknots right now but still "tied" then just because it no longer is a mathematical knot in R4+ Does not mean that it wouldn't hold your shoes on!

This is to say nothing of my opinion on the translational mapping of the planes.

[Naomi Li]

Here's the thing about infinity: it's infinite.

There exists an infinite set of numbers between the values 2 and 3; 2.1, 2.11, 2.111 etc. But although this set is infinite, none of these numbers are 4.

"Infinite" is not the same as "all-encompassing". It's entirely mathematically possible for one set of infinities to contain "more" stuff than another set, ie for the infinite ethereal plane to contain space coterminous with all points of the infinite material plane, in addition to an infinite area of space that is not.

While true, this requires a non-1:1 correspondence between material and ethereal at some point. While this is certainly possible, it does seem at least slightly contra-indicated by the fluff. And any "extra space" is almost certainly NOT anywhere near the surface of planets or similarly easily observed areas. Perhaps the farther away from gravity wells you get the more ethereal plane there is to material plane? Would probably render the ethereal plane use impaired for travel between stars, maybe even between planets/moons if the effect is pronounced enough.

[Phelix-Mu]

I was thinking of it like there being a box of oranges that has infinitely many oranges (the Prime), and a box of apples that has infinitely many apples that is made up of red apples (the normal Ethereal), and green apples (the Deep Ethereal).

For every red apple, there is an orange.

But no oranges correspond to green apples.

I think that works. Basically, just because two infinite sets have overlap doesn't mean that they must coincide.

Or I could be totally wrong. But that's how the game suggests it works, and higher math/physics be damned! (yay crazy physics!):smallwink:

[The Grue]

No, actually, that's a much more intuitive way of visualizing what I was driving at than abstract sets of numbers. Kudos.

[afroakuma]

Afroakuma

Who summons the wrath?

Ah, another one of these. I *do* have a thread around for this sort of thing, you know. Just saying. :smalltongue:

Now then.


2) The ethereal and shadow planes have -no- connection to each other.

4) ... traveling in the fourth dimension of the ethereal, going from the border to the deep ethereal or vice-versa, is possible as an act of will.

These are the relevant points and both correct. The Ethereal does indeed have a fourth "spatial" dimension ("inward/outward" or "toward/away" or however you like it) and the Ethereal has no association with the Plane of Shadow.

Any other issues, come over and find me. Searching for things is a drag. :smalltongue:

[Zweisteine]

Who summons the wrath?
That'd be me. Though last time, it didn't work.

Here's my general solution for all planar problems:
They work, and don't make sense without lots of thinking. If you don't think about it, there's no problem.

[Duke of Urrel]

The inner planes form a sphere where each primary plane (Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Positive, Negative) has 1 intermediary plane between it and any of the other primary planes (except its opposite). [A Rubik Cube without the corners or center]

The unofficial version of the inner planes makes even more sense [A Rubik Cube without the center]

This isn't the only way to imagine the Elemental Planes. My own personal house-ruled view, which bears no relation to anything official, is that the Elemental Planes arrange themselves in a tetrahedron, like the points on a four-sided die. (Or like the faces of a four-sided die, whichever way you care to visualize it.) This allows every one of the four Elemental Planes to share borders with the other three. I think it's fun to imagine what the border between the Elemental Planes of Fire and Water would be like – clouds of steam, I suppose – and what the border between the Elemental Planes of Earth and Air would be like – clouds of dust, I suppose. And in the exact center of the tetrahedron, there you would find the Material Plane, with its mixture of all four classical Elements.

[OldTrees1]

This isn't the only way to imagine the Elemental Planes. My own personal house-ruled view, which bears no relation to anything official, is that the Elemental Planes arrange themselves in a tetrahedron, like the points on a four-sided die. (Or like the faces of a four-sided die, whichever way you care to visualize it.) This allows every one of the four Elemental Planes to share borders with the other three. I think it's fun to imagine what the border between the Elemental Planes of Fire and Water would be like – clouds of steam, I suppose – and what the border between the Elemental Planes of Earth and Air would be like – clouds of dust, I suppose. And in the exact center of the tetrahedron, there you would find the Material Plane, with its mixture of all four classical Elements.

Curious:
What about Positive and Negative?
Dust and Steam are good choices for the additional Paraelemental planes you create.
What about Quasielemental planes? I assume they don't exist.

If the elements are arranged in a tetrahedron, I assume that implies that earth and air are not direct inversions of each other in your mind (unlike the aristotelian definitions). Could you describe more?

[TuggyNE]

The astral plane, however, is at least nine-dimensional. Which really ought to drive most non-native creatures insane, without some sort of magical protection. I've been meaning to write up some houserules about that.

Hmm. When would those rules come into play? Most magic that lets you get there in the first place is high enough level that it could reasonably be handwaved to include that protection by default, I think. Still, interesting idea.

[Captnq]

I always thought of it as a 5d universe projected onto a 6th dimensional object.

Sort of like a shadow on a wall.

Each "universe" is infinite in the standard 3 dimensions, but finite in the 4th and 5th. Since in the 4th and 5th dimension, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dimensions don't matter, we can ignore them safely when looking at cosmology.

So, you could move them around like little shapes on a page, sort of like right out of the book.

Now, occationally, you get things superimposed on one another.

Ethereal and shadow planes for instance.

The Shadow plane is what happens when you go "below" the surface reality is being projected onto. The "trashbin" of the universe, as it were. Hence why everything is a "shadow" of something. It's an after image. Like when you look at a light too long and you have that after image float around the room where ever you look.

The ethereal plane is "above" 6th dimensionally. Hence why it's so empty. It's the space above the universe. But not very far up. Just slightly out of phase.

And the Astral plane is the actual surface reality is projected onto. It's the "middle". Where everything happens.

I have a whole meta-plot about some gods trying to figure out how to get "out" 6th dimensionally. They used Eberron like a Cannonball a few hundred thousand years ago and it didn't work so well.

[Drachasor]

Though I don't study knot theory specifically, I do want to point out that a mathematical knot is different than a vernacular knot.

All mathematical knots are based on circles, any non-closed linear starting point is always an unknot.

Therefore your shoelaces? An unknot.
The riggings on a ship? An unknot.

While all mathematical knots CAN be unfolded in R4, that doesn't mean that they would fall apart from slight forces or that they wouldn't be considered to be still knots to vernacular speakers!

Think of it this way,
If your shoelaces are Unknots right now but still "tied" then just because it no longer is a mathematical knot in R4+ Does not mean that it wouldn't hold your shoes on!

This is to say nothing of my opinion on the translational mapping of the planes.

Mathematical knots assume you don't have any ends to the knot (though there are theories that allow ends). That is, you have a loop of string. If you hold the ends of your laces together and "untie" them, then you will not have a simple circle of string, you'll have a knot. So shoelaces aren't unknots.

But we can avoid knot theory. Lets say you have a chain. In 3D the links are good and solid. In 4D the links are worthless, any link can slip out by just going along the 4th dimension. This is why chainmail, weaving, stitching, and a lot of other stuff would just fall apart in 4D space.

If it helps to think of it, consider 4D space as 3D space where items can hop forward and backward in time just as easily as they can move spatially. A chain falls apart as its pieces go every which way in time for instance. This is not a perfect analogy, but it might help you visualize it.

Or another way is to consider a 1D universe:
_................................................. ..................._

Let's say the dashes apply a lot of pressure on either end of the line. All those dots then form a perfectly strong structure in 1D. Go to 2D though and the whole thing falls apart.

Ties, links, and the like in 3D just don't work in 4D. It's like saying that a 3 foot tall fence that forms a square is going to keep all the pigs in their pen...even when a wizard casts fly on them.


Given the following FACTS for at least some universes, what alternatives do you actually have other than four spatial dimensions in the ethereal plane? (I note that you did raise a few, but there is absolutely zero support for them that I am aware of for them other than "they function", thus making them AS legitimate as the four spatial dimension theory, not superior. Still, one can come up with some very interesting possibilities. What causes the ratios to vary could have very notable implications)

1) There is a 1:1:0.25 correlation between the material, ethereal, and shadow planes for the regions in which they overlap.
2) The material plane is truly infinite in all spatial dimensions.
3) There is a much larger portion of the ethereal plane than that which overlaps with the material and shadow planes.

Even IF knots cannot function in four dimensional space, why is that a reason to declare that the ethereal plane cannot have four spatial dimensions? There's no rule that says "knots function in the ethereal plane". And if there were, I am fairly sure one can invent some sort of reason for how it could function outside of the normal demands of physics.

I'm amused you are insistent here on "facts" when the fact is the "deep ethereal" doesn't exist in PF and its existence in 3.5 is unclear. It's also poorly defined. For all we know it corresponds to outer space in real life.

In any case the ratios you give are not guaranteed by RAW. Alternatively, you can have those correspondences in discrete regions that cover the entirety of the Prime with other regions that are uncorrelated to Prime Locations. This has been pointed out to you before.

For instance, start with an Ethereal that has a 1:1 correspondence with the Prime. Now, break it up into 10' cubes. Now between each 10' cube add 10' of space of "deep ethereal". This new Ethereal still covers all of the Prime and more besides. There are many ways to break up the mapping like this if you desire, and you can have much larger chunks if you wish of course.

Another option is to have Ethereal Layers that work like other Planar Layers. Levels of Deep Ethereal could exist, each being a plane in its own right. Potentially each layer of Deep Ethereal could be connected in a 1-1 correspondence to the next higher and lower layers even. Traveling between the layers would still require spells, of course.

So overall there are plenty of options for a Deep Ethereal that don't involve the problems of 4D. People here are largely acting like 4D is going to be something really easy and pretty much just like 3D. That's just not the case. It is as different from 3D as 3D is from 2D. Take some time to think of how a 2D universe would work and all the things that a 3D universe changes.

[Larkas]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhBoY6s-Fhw) might be helpful.

Dunno, Drachasor. Just because that chain can become easily undone in a 4D space, it doesn't mean it would automatically be so. Specially if you're interacting with stuff set in the same three dimensions as you.

(This gets even weirder if you take gravity into account. How the heck is gravity supposed to work in a 4D world?)

It's a little amusing to think about a 3D warrior working in a 4D environment and simply not understanding why his armor simply vanished, though :smallbiggrin:

[Duke of Urrel]

Curious:
What about Positive and Negative?

You've put your finger right on the drawback of my tetrahedral system. You can't squeeze two more Inner Planes neatly into it anywhere, at least not with ordinary geometry. In order to do that, we have to use your Rubik's Cube system, with the Positive Energy Plane at the north pole, the Negative Energy Plane at the south pole, and the Elemental Planes arranged around the equator (so to speak).



Dust and Steam are good choices for the additional Paraelemental planes you create.
What about Quasielemental planes? I assume they don't exist.

If the elements are arranged in a tetrahedron, I assume that implies that earth and air are not direct inversions of each other in your mind (unlike the aristotelian definitions). Could you describe more?

I'll confess that I had never known of the existence of quasielementals until you mentioned them and I googled them! (This is why I read these threads!) The eight types of quasielementals listed by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-elemental) fit perfectly in a Rubik's Cube model: four for the borders that the Positive Energy Plane shares with the Elemental Planes, and four for the borders that the Negative Energy Plane shares with them.

I never meant to imply that Earth and Air are not opposites, or that Fire and Water are not opposites. They are opposites, but I think it's interesting to have these opposites actually collide somewhere, as they do on the Material Plane.

Of course, the Elemental Plane of Air, as it is described in the Manual of the Planes, contains some solid objects floating around, and the Elemental Plane of Earth contains some air spaces (the Great Dismal Delve). There is no water mentioned in any description of the Elemental Plane of Fire that I have seen, and no fire mentioned in any description of the Elemental Plane of Water, but maybe incursions of opposite elementals may happen on these Elemental Planes, too, at odd times. Besides, the Wikipedia article on quasielementals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-elemental) identifies steam quasielementals as mixtures between water and positive energy (not water and fire), and it identifies dust quasielementals as mixtures of earth and negative energy (not earth and air).

Perhaps I don't need a tetrahedral model after all. I thank you for your input, OldTrees1, and I hope Naomi Li doesn't mind that it's a little off-topic.

[Drachasor]

Dunno, Drachasor. Just because that chain can become easily undone in a 4D space, it doesn't mean it would automatically be so. Specially if you're interacting with stuff set in the same three dimensions as you.

(This gets even weirder if you take gravity into account. How the heck is gravity supposed to work in a 4D world?)

It's a little amusing to think about a 3D warrior working in a 4D environment and simply not understanding why his armor simply vanished, though :smallbiggrin:

Turn that around. Just because it stays together in 3D doesn't mean it will stay together in 4D. Again, something supremely solid in 3D isn't necessarily going to have anything to hold it together in 4D. Apply any force along the 4th axis and this stuff will fall apart.

Armor is pretty useless too (relative to 3D). As a 3D creature, something can just bypass your armor by attacking along the 4th Dimension. Armor would be akin to having a shield at best, and a shield would be like defending yourself with a stick in 3D. It's a like like a circle wearing an outer layer of armor along its edge thinking that will defend its innards from attack...but a 3D creature can just bypass that protection and stab it in the middle.

Gravity would work roughly the same, but it works across 4 axes. Depending of the gravitational law at work it could mean gravity falls off a lot faster than in 3D. Of course, a 3D object in 4D space isn't going to be very dense, so that's a whole can of worms right there.

Overall 4D just isn't going to work in a way that makes much sense if you think about it. Even if you do adjust it to work, chances are most players will have a hard time thinking about it. Heck, some players can have a hard time handling 3D when you toss in flying. Not worth the effort, imho. Best to stick with 3D.

[Duke of Urrel]

Hmm. When would those rules come into play? Most magic that lets you get there in the first place is high enough level that it could reasonably be handwaved to include that protection by default, I think. Still, interesting idea.

I sincerely hope that when I'm the DM, players won't insist on using nine spatial dimensions for movement on the Astral Plane. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, I think three spatial dimensions are generally enough for play using an ordinary game grid. We can safely ignore most other dimensions, particularly in combat, even though we all agree that these dimensions exist and that our three-dimensional movements are really only simplifications of the multi-dimensional movements that we imagine taking place. But we can never ignore one dimension in particular: the line that you draw from the place where you're coming from to the place where you're going.

My old Manual of the Planes (2001) – which I think qualifies as version 3.0 – indicates that familiarity with the Astral Plane permits one to travel through it more quickly to one's chosen destination: an Astral Pool of the proper color, which leads directly to the Alternate Plane of your choice. The time of travel varies from 1d10 times 50 hours for a novice to 2d6 hours for a veteran traveler.

I think the effect of this familiarity is to reduce the mental disorientation that you must feel, as a creature accustomed to three-dimensional space, when you find yourself on the Astral Plane, which has many more spatial dimensions than three. As I suggested above, maybe entering a Transitive Plane naturally opens up your mind, so that you can think in more spatial dimensions than just three, though you may be terribly confused at first. And maybe Knowledge of the Planes qualifies as familiarity, reduces your disorientation on the Astral Plane, and increases your speed of travel.

[Larkas]

--snip--

That is true. I was arguing, however, that if you were interacting solely with 3D creatures in a 4D world, and these creatures didn't know how to shift one of their axes (i.e.: none would), the difference would be none at all. The only ones able to abuse the fourth dimension would be four-dimensional beings (Far Realm entities? Hmmm...).

That may or may not come apart if you take into consideration 3D creatures that can travel, but not perceive or act upon, the fourth dimension. A square taken to a different plane slightly out of phase, but parallel along the z axis, with his previous one wouldn't be able to interact with his trapezoidal girlfriend any more, for example.