PDA

View Full Version : How to Shield the Earth



Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 12:30 AM
To get Telekinetic Sphere to have a diameter capable on enclosing the entire earth requires a Caster Level of 23,018,202.

Now this may seem impossible, but it's not.

Step 1: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 20).
Step 2: Gate in 10 rats.
Step 3: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 30).
Step 4: Gate in 15 rats.
Step 5: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 45).
Step 6: Gate in 22 rats.
Step 7: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 67).
Step 8: Gate in 33 rats.
Step 9: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 90).
Step 10: Gate in 45 rats.
Step 11: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 135).
Step 12: Gate in 67 rats.
Step 13: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 202).
Step 14: Gate in 101 rats.
Step 15: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 303).
Step 16: Gate in 151 rats.
Step 17: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 454).
Step 18: Gate in 229 rats.
Repeat until your CL is high enough (39th casting of GCF)

Or for a quicker way:
Step 1: Gate in an Effertie.
Step 2: Have the Effertie Wish you up a scroll of GCF at CL 48,000,000 (legal).
Step 3: Have the Efferie Wish you up a scroll of gate at CL 6,000,000
Step 4: Shapechange into a Lilitu.
Step 5: Use the Scroll of GCF.
Step 6: Use the scroll of gate to gate in 24,000,000 rats.
Step 7: Cast Telekinetic Sphere around the planet.

Or for the quickest way:
Step 1: Gate in a Solar.
Step 2: Wish for a CL 24,000,000 scroll of TK Sphere.
Step 3: Shapechange into a Lilitu.
Step 5: Use the scroll of TK sphere.


So if your DM ever wants you to stop a comet or asteroid from hitting the planet, now you know how.

Albonor
2008-08-08, 12:33 AM
Wait, you can wish for something requiring a greater caster level than you have? I thought it was implied that you could not...

Recaiden
2008-08-08, 12:34 AM
Why a lilitu? I admit, i don't know what that is.

NEO|Phyte
2008-08-08, 12:38 AM
Why a lilitu? I admit, i don't know what that is.

I'm guessing it has an ability that lets it autosucceed on UMD checks, because you'd need one hell of a modifier to it to use one of those scrolls.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 12:55 AM
Why a lilitu? I admit, i don't know what that is.

Fiendish Codex 1. Has the Item Use (Ex) ability, which lets you auto-succeed on any UMD check.


I'm guessing it has an ability that lets it autosucceed on UMD checks, because you'd need one hell of a modifier to it to use one of those scrolls.
Correct.

Fizban
2008-08-08, 01:00 AM
Why not just Shapechange into a Zodar and wish it up yourself?

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 01:02 AM
Why not just Shapechange into a Zodar and wish it up yourself?

Zodar is in MM2. Which is 3.0. Much better to use 3.5 approved methods.

JeminiZero
2008-08-08, 01:16 AM
Rather than gate in all those rats. You could just use (or hire someone with)the Chicken Infested feat.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 01:36 AM
Rather than gate in all those rats. You could just use (or hire someone with)the Chicken Infested feat.

Yeah, there are lots of things you can do with unlimited chickens.

DigoDragon
2008-08-08, 06:56 AM
So if your DM ever wants you to stop a comet or asteroid from hitting the planet, now you know how.

Or imprison the populous akin to the slave shields of Star Control 2? :smalltongue:

Arakune
2008-08-08, 07:04 AM
why the scroll are legal?

Tengu_temp
2008-08-08, 07:06 AM
why the scroll are legal?

They are legal by RAW, in the same way that by RAW you can perform actions while dead, because it doesn't say you can't.

detrevnisisiht
2008-08-08, 07:29 AM
......Why do I have the feeling that my eyes are about to explode from the awesome I just read?

*pop* O God!!! They burn with the flaming heat of the supernova that the planet was just saved from!

Congratulations tippy, you win as many cookies as you can fit in that thing.

Griffin131
2008-08-08, 08:24 AM
They are legal by RAW, in the same way that by RAW you can perform actions while dead, because it doesn't say you can't.
No, theyre legal because of the wording on Wish, and the wording on scroll creation.

Its not that id doesn't say you can't, in fact Wish says you can wish for any magic item and scrolls don't limit the caster level you scribe them as. So someone could do the GCF+rat trick, get a massive CL and then scribe the scroll. Using Wish to duplicate that is just a shortcut.

Douglas
2008-08-08, 08:37 AM
Step 1: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 20).
Step 2: Gate in 10 rats.
Step 3: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 30).
Step 4: Gate in 15 rats.
Step 5: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 45).
Step 6: Gate in 22 rats.
Step 7: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 67).
Step 8: Gate in 33 rats.
Step 9: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 90).
Step 10: Gate in 45 rats.
Step 11: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 135).
Step 12: Gate in 67 rats.
Step 13: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 202).
Step 14: Gate in 101 rats.
Step 15: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 303).
Step 16: Gate in 151 rats.
Step 17: Cast Greater Consumptive Field (at a CL of 454).
Step 18: Gate in 229 rats.
Repeat until your CL is high enough (39th casting of GCF)
Haven't we gone over this before, Tippy? Greater Consumptive Field's caster level bonus does not stack with itself, and the best you can normally get out of repeated castings of it is a mere doubling of your pre-GCF caster level.

D Knight
2008-08-08, 09:08 AM
whats with all the rats? whats the reason for all the rats because i am missing something and that annoys me.

Were-Sandwich
2008-08-08, 09:12 AM
I'm guessing Greater Consumptive Field needs something to consume.

kamikasei
2008-08-08, 09:56 AM
Haven't we gone over this before, Tippy? Greater Consumptive Field's caster level bonus does not stack with itself, and the best you can normally get out of repeated castings of it is a mere doubling of your pre-GCF caster level.

What's the wording on GCF? It might be possible to achieve the same increase more slowly even with non-stacking bonuses.

BTW, Tippy, I think you have an error in your math there. If I'm reading the progression right, step 9 should give you a CL of 67+33=100, not 90.

OverWilliam
2008-08-08, 10:15 AM
*sniff* That's some tasty smelling cheese you got there, Tippy. :smallamused:

I don't know about anybody else, but if I was the DM and somebody tried this one I would rule that in order to cast that much higher level a spell from a scroll, you need more magic script to power it. This isn't a problem at lower levels (1-20) because you can use more potent runes to squeeze more power into a standard sized scroll, but as you go on increasing the power at some point you need to increase the amount script powering the massive spell. Therefore, in order to power a TK sphere that big, you'd need a scroll proportionately similar to the amount of script you'd need to cast one with a regular scroll. I don't know the exact math there, I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to Complete the Geek on that one, but that would be a pretty big scroll. :smallbiggrin:

Douglas
2008-08-08, 11:04 AM
What's the wording on GCF? It might be possible to achieve the same increase more slowly even with non-stacking bonuses.
Nope. GCF's caster level bonus is capped at half the caster level of the GCF. If your normal caster level is X, once you get the bonus to X and the total to X+X = 2X, the bonus from casting it again is just 2X/2 = X, no bigger than what you already have.

NecroRebel
2008-08-08, 11:16 AM
Nope. GCF's caster level bonus is capped at half the caster level of the GCF. If your normal caster level is X, once you get the bonus to X and the total to X+X = 2X, the bonus from casting it again is just 2X/2 = X, no bigger than what you already have.

That isn't quite true, though GCF can't actually give infinite CL. GCF gives a CL bonus equal to ((2^n-1)/2^n)X, where n is the number of times you've nested GCFs and X is your original caster level, so you can get up to just under double your original caster level, but no higher.

Because bonuses from the same source don't stack, that means that the bonus from GCF always adds only to your original caster level (or your caster level after non-GCF bonuses of a different type), but the actual cap for GCF does still reference the increased CL from having cast GCF.

It does mean that particular method doesn't actually work, but the other two methods were quicker and easier anyway.



I do wonder, though... If you plan on stopping something with a TK-Sphere, why surround the whole planet? Unless the thing threatening you is coming from all sides or will actively move around any obstacles in its path, you could probably get the same defensive power with a moon-sized TK-Sphere on whatever side the threat is coming from. Do it that way, and your CL would have to be less than a quarter that for the whole planet.

OverWilliam
2008-08-08, 11:22 AM
Do it that way, and your CL would have to be less than a quarter that for the whole planet.

Surrounding your entire planet with a protective barrier is just too cool NOT to do. Even if it could easily be taken care of in moderation (relatively speaking) putting a Bubble around the whole thing increases the awesome by orders of magnitude. :smalltongue:

kamikasei
2008-08-08, 11:29 AM
Nope. GCF's caster level bonus is capped at half the caster level of the GCF. If your normal caster level is X, once you get the bonus to X and the total to X+X = 2X, the bonus from casting it again is just 2X/2 = X, no bigger than what you already have.

Checked it, you're right. Well, actually NecroRebel's right.

Pirate_King
2008-08-08, 11:38 AM
isn't that kind of a waste of magic, anyway, just to stop a comet? Why do you have to cover the entire planet? if you've got the resources to do all that, then you've got the resources to figure the comets exact trajectory, which you could stop or deflect with a good sized wall of force.

Copacetic
2008-08-08, 11:45 AM
You could stop the same asteroid with a few immovable rods. Just stick them in fornt of it and press the button.

Prophaniti
2008-08-08, 11:48 AM
Well, if GCF can't give a high enough CL, that kills the other two methods too, because it isn't possible to make a scroll of TK Sphere or GCF with a sufficient caster level (I mean at all, which means no wishing for it, it can't be done). So... More cheese, please, let's see if anyone can work around that.

Irreverent Fool
2008-08-08, 11:55 AM
You could stop the same asteroid with a few immovable rods. Just stick them in fornt of it and press the button.

Immovable rods aren't immovable.



An immovable rod can support up to 8,000 pounds before falling to the ground


A comet weighs more than 8,000 pounds.


*sniff* That's some tasty smelling cheese you got there, Tippy. :smallamused:

I don't know about anybody else, but if I was the DM and somebody tried this one I would rule that in order to cast that much higher level a spell from a scroll, you need more magic script to power it. This isn't a problem at lower levels (1-20) because you can use more potent runes to squeeze more power into a standard sized scroll, but as you go on increasing the power at some point you need to increase the amount script powering the massive spell. Therefore, in order to power a TK sphere that big, you'd need a scroll proportionately similar to the amount of script you'd need to cast one with a regular scroll. I don't know the exact math there, I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to Complete the Geek on that one, but that would be a pretty big scroll. :smallbiggrin:

If I was the DM and somebody tried this seriously I would stop DM'ing.

"If I was the DM..." has no place in these kinds of discussions. You know that.

Putting a bubble around the planet is just plain awesome though. People asking "why bother just to stop a comet" clearly don't see the big picture.

OverWilliam
2008-08-08, 12:18 PM
"If I was the DM..." has no place in these kinds of discussions. You know that.

...Well I do now. :smallfrown:

FMArthur
2008-08-08, 12:20 PM
I wonder what kind of weather disasters this would cause if you didn't do it far out enough.

OverWilliam
2008-08-08, 12:33 PM
^ That's why we're rounding at 24 MILLION for the CL instead of just over 23 million that the actual math works out close to. :smallbiggrin: That would be quite interesting, though, I wonder what kind of stuff one could intentionally mess with using that one...

Aquillion
2008-08-08, 12:43 PM
What is this 'planet' thing you speak of? I have searched the core books several times, and the only mentions are passing things, none indicating that your adventures actually take place on such an object. :smallconfused:

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2008-08-08, 12:59 PM
Yes, if you look at the Cosmology, they clearly operate on a large disk.

kamikasei
2008-08-08, 01:11 PM
Yes, if you look at the Cosmology, they clearly operate on a large disk.

DMG p136. The default assumption is that basic real-world principles not actively contradicted still hold. That the world is round is specifically given as an example.

vicente408
2008-08-08, 01:12 PM
But can it stop electro-matter?

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 01:41 PM
Hmm, true about the caster levels. You can still wish up a GCF scroll at CL 48,000,000.

Alleine
2008-08-08, 01:48 PM
So, uh, where exactly are you targeting with the telekinetic sphere?

Center of the earth is out since you don't have line of sight or effect.

Jayabalard
2008-08-08, 01:53 PM
DMG p136. The default assumption is that basic real-world principles not actively contradicted still hold. That the world is round is specifically given as an example.Round is not te same thing as spherical.

discworld, for example, is both round and flat.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 01:53 PM
So, uh, where exactly are you targeting with the telekinetic sphere?

Center of the earth is out since you don't have line of sight or effect.

Thats not a problem. Just go ethereal and teleport down there. Or say that the "planet" is your target

Jayabalard
2008-08-08, 01:58 PM
"If I was the DM..." has no place in these kinds of discussions. You know that.Since wish is a spell that, by RAW, requires a certain amount of DM adjudication, "has no place in these kinds of discussions" is not really correct.

Trying to wish for utra-high caster level scrolls seems pretty much on par with wishing for a staff of the magi, so I would expect the result of the wish to be similar to that particular example in the phb.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 02:26 PM
Incorrect. If you use Wish for one of the listed effects there is no DM adjudication. And Wishing for a scroll with an ultra high CL falls under the magic items clause. It requires a house rule to prevent it, RAW it's legal.

Helgraf
2008-08-08, 02:37 PM
Congratulations. You've played havok with the rules to duplicate the world of Highlander II.

Are you proud?

OverWilliam
2008-08-08, 03:11 PM
Incorrect. If you use Wish for one of the listed effects there is no DM adjudication. And Wishing for a scroll with an ultra high CL falls under the magic items clause. It requires a house rule to prevent it, RAW it's legal.

Anything the DM rules at any time they rule it is a "house rule," if I'm not mistaken. :smallwink:

Helgraf
2008-08-08, 03:15 PM
Incorrect. If you use Wish for one of the listed effects there is no DM adjudication. And Wishing for a scroll with an ultra high CL falls under the magic items clause. It requires a house rule to prevent it, RAW it's legal.

So, what's the GP value (and by extension the XP value) on that scroll.

Cause I believe if you go over a certain cap, it does become DM adjucation territory again.

And I presume you're using the SLA loophole to avoid the massive XP sink for using wish to create a magic item (2x normal cost + 5000 XP).

Caster Level 23,018,202 x CL ? * 25 (GP) / 25 (XP)

So, yeah, (23018202 * 2 * SL) + 5000 XP
(46,036,404 * SL) + 5000 XP.

So, for completeness
AT spell level (since I don't know the SL offhand)
00 = 023,023,202 XP, 00,575,580,050 GP
01 = 046,041,404 XP, 01,151,035,100 GP
02 = 092,077,808 XP, 02,301,945,200 GP
03 = 138,114,212 XP, 03,452,855,300 GP
04 = 184,150,616 XP, 04,603,765,400 GP
05 = 230,187,020 XP, 05,754,675,500 GP
06 = 276,223,424 XP, 06,905,585,600 GP
07 = 322,259,828 XP, 08,056,495,700 GP
08 = 368,296,232 XP, 09,207,405,800 GP
09 = 414,332,636 XP, 10,358,315,900 GP

Yeah. Billions of GP. Low to mid millions of XP.

kamikasei
2008-08-08, 03:25 PM
Wish can create a nonmagical item, create a magical item, or add to the powers of an existing magical item.

There is a GP limit on nonmagical items. There is none for magical items.


When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.

That's the limit on magical items.


A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost.

So if you use a Calling (not Summoning) spell to get a creature with wish as a spell-like ability, that creature can wish you up any magical item you like without limit, pretty much.

Helgraf
2008-08-08, 03:37 PM
Ahh, once again, the world is saved by sloppy editting.


Wish can create a nonmagical item, create a magical item, or add to the powers of an existing magical item.

There is a GP limit on nonmagical items. There is none for magical items.



That's the limit on magical items.



So if you use a Calling (not Summoning) spell to get a creature with wish as a spell-like ability, that creature can wish you up any magical item you like without limit, pretty much.

Right - and why would it?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-08, 03:40 PM
Right - and why would it?Because it has to, due to the wording of spells like Gate. WotC strikes again.

Helgraf
2008-08-08, 03:42 PM
Because it has to, due to the wording of spells like Gate. WotC strikes again.

So you're presuming that having it wish coulds as an immediate task as opposed to a contractual service (which would require fair trade in return).

kamikasei
2008-08-08, 03:46 PM
So you're presuming that having it wish coulds as an immediate task as opposed to a contractual service (which would require fair trade in return).

Having it wish is asking it to perform a standard action, which seems like a pretty immediate task to me.

edit: And, checking the spell:


...taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task...

So, yeah.

Jayabalard
2008-08-08, 04:39 PM
Incorrect. If you use Wish for one of the listed effects there is no DM adjudication. And Wishing for a scroll with an ultra high CL falls under the magic items clause. It requires a house rule to prevent it, RAW it's legal.Isn't the Staff of the magi a magic item? It is a specific example where the DM should adjudicate. A scroll with the suggested caster limit seems to be, if anything, a more powerful item, and it seems quite reasonable to me to assume that wishing for yon uber casterlevel scroll would fall under the same exception to the magic item clause that the staff of the magi does, and the results of wishing for it would be the same/similar as wishing for a staff of the magi.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 04:50 PM
Isn't the Staff of the magi a magic item? It is a specific example where the DM should adjudicate. A scroll with the suggested caster limit seems to be, if anything, a more powerful item, and it seems quite reasonable to me to assume that wishing for yon uber casterlevel scroll would have a rather similar result to wishing for a staff of the magi.

It's an artifact.

Jayabalard
2008-08-08, 04:52 PM
It's an artifact.which are a class of magic items. Much like rings, rods, armor etc are classes of magic items.

Based on the description of artifacts, it seems to me that your uber caster level scroll would qualify: it's a magic item that can not be created by common mortal means.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 05:08 PM
which are a class of magic items. Much like rings, rods, armor etc are classes of magic items.

Except they can't be created. The rule specifically say you can't create artifacts, in fact they aren't even in play by default (the DM has to place them in the game).

Jayabalard
2008-08-08, 05:14 PM
Except they can't be created. The rule specifically say you can't create artifacts, in fact they aren't even in play by default (the DM has to place them in the game).they still fall into the class of "magic items" and there's nothing in the text of wish that imply that the staff of the magi is given as an example because it happens to be a member of a specific class of magic items rather than the fact that it's simply an abnomally powerful magic item.

In my opinion, any situation where there is contradictory text involved in something where DM adjudication is specifically advised under certain circumstances, the situation is too ambiguous to make any argument using only the holy book of RAW.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 05:16 PM
they still fall into the class of "magic items" and there's nothing in the text of wish that imply that the staff of the magi is given as an example because it happens to be a member of a specific class of magic items rather than the fact that it's simply an abnomally powerful magic item.

Specific Trumps General. Artifacts are specifically stated as being uncreateable. For an artifact to be in the game requires the DM to place it in the game, that is the rule with artifacts. No such rule exists for other magic items.

OverWilliam
2008-08-08, 05:23 PM
Now now, ET, for all of your "the rules don't say I can't" mojo you got going on, you cannot deny that a 24,000,000 CL ANYTHING is far beyond access by normal means. By definition it cannot be created, otherwise you wouldn't be wishing for it, and therefore it CAN, if you decide to, be solidly classified as an artifact, no excuses, no loopholes, full stop.

Note that I'm more or less on your side on this one, by which I mean I want as much as you do to be able to figure out how to do this within the rules just because of how Rule of Cool it is. :smallbiggrin:

Funkyodor
2008-08-08, 05:40 PM
If you are using summoned (Gated) Wish to get a Scroll, then why not just make it a non-slotted once a day item of Telekinetic Sphere at CL 100 Million? Or maybe 100 Trillion? Don't need the gymnastics for an obscene CL, and a Familiar can use it...

(Man, I just mentally changed the lyrics to Jaded in my head to Gated...)

Griffin131
2008-08-08, 05:59 PM
If you are using summoned (Gated) Wish to get a Scroll, then why not just make it a non-slotted once a day item of Telekinetic Sphere at CL 100 Million? Or maybe 100 Trillion? Don't need the gymnastics for an obscene CL, and a Familiar can use it...

(Man, I just mentally changed the lyrics to Jaded in my head to Gated...)
Because that requires DM rulings... just like creating any new magic item does. The scroll is an already existing item with a high CL.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-08, 06:00 PM
Now now, ET, for all of your "the rules don't say I can't" mojo you got going on, you cannot deny that a 24,000,000 CL ANYTHING is far beyond access by normal means. By definition it cannot be created, otherwise you wouldn't be wishing for it, and therefore it CAN, if you decide to, be solidly classified as an artifact, no excuses, no loopholes, full stop.

Note that I'm more or less on your side on this one, by which I mean I want as much as you do to be able to figure out how to do this within the rules just because of how Rule of Cool it is. :smallbiggrin:

Doesn't matter. It's not an artifact.

Unscrewed
2008-08-08, 06:09 PM
*reads* Daaaaang. Planet shields. Now that's just cool.

Kool-Aid
2008-08-08, 06:42 PM
I'll stick to my more simple means of shielding the earth, thank you very much.

Either A: Four Giants or B: a crapload of bubblewrap :smalltongue:

Aquillion
2008-08-08, 08:24 PM
Incorrect. If you use Wish for one of the listed effects there is no DM adjudication. And Wishing for a scroll with an ultra high CL falls under the magic items clause. It requires a house rule to prevent it, RAW it's legal.It is worth pointing out, though, that normally Wish requires that you pay twice the normal XP cost of items created with it. It's the XP cost negation that's broken here, not Wish itself (it's just the most broken spell to negate the XP cost for.)

But none of this matters, because there's a much more basic exploit. From the section of the SRD on scrolls:
A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way. Assume the scroll spellís caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spellís level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise. Emphasis mine. Yes, it actually says that. Not the person who scribed the scroll, the caster -- that is, the person using the scroll.

In other words, here's the trick to shielding the earth: Grab a scroll of ORS. It can be a cheap store-bought one, doesn't matter. Turn into a Lilitu, decide that you want the caster level to be eleventy billion, and read it. Presto, done.

Signmaker
2008-08-08, 10:06 PM
It is worth pointing out, though, that normally Wish requires that you pay twice the normal XP cost of items created with it. It's the XP cost negation that's broken here, not Wish itself (it's just the most broken spell to negate the XP cost for.)

But none of this matters, because there's a much more basic exploit. From the section of the SRD on scrolls:Emphasis mine. Yes, it actually says that. Not the person who scribed the scroll, the caster -- that is, the person using the scroll.

In other words, here's the trick to shielding the earth: Grab a scroll of ORS. It can be a cheap store-bought one, doesn't matter. Turn into a Lilitu, decide that you want the caster level to be eleventy billion, and read it. Presto, done.

I, uh, do believe that's in reference to scrolls founds. Like, "You find a Scroll of Storm of Vengeance." in which the PC will assume it's CL17. The scroll creator, on the other hand, can change the CL to a higher value, such that they are able to cast. I don't think you can freely manipulate the CL value of a scroll. Otherwise, people would buy CL-Minimum scrolls of certain spells and simply cast them at a higher value, to save gp. I think you MIGHT be squeezing too much out of the rules on this one.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-08, 10:28 PM
If I was the DM and somebody tried this seriously I would stop DM'ing.

"If I was the DM..." has no place in these kinds of discussions. You know that.

Things like planetary shields are the only reason I'd even bother playing 3.5e anymore. I consider it a worthless system for balanced, reasonable play ... but for insane, over-the-top weirdness like this, it's perfect. :smalltongue:

And when it comes to insane and over-the-top stuff in 3.5e, Tippy is undeniably a master ...

Talic
2008-08-09, 12:38 AM
I believe Tippy strikes a certain chord that is often referenced as the Rule of Cool. This thread, that chord was just played loudly.

Don the Bastard
2008-08-09, 12:41 AM
Just encase it in diamondillium.

vicente408
2008-08-09, 02:10 AM
Just encase it in diamondillium.

Diamondillium is crap! I could break that with a feather fall. Diamondium is the sweet stuff.

Aquillion
2008-08-09, 09:25 AM
I, uh, do believe that's in reference to scrolls founds. Like, "You find a Scroll of Storm of Vengeance." in which the PC will assume it's CL17. The scroll creator, on the other hand, can change the CL to a higher value, such that they are able to cast. I don't think you can freely manipulate the CL value of a scroll. Otherwise, people would buy CL-Minimum scrolls of certain spells and simply cast them at a higher value, to save gp. I think you MIGHT be squeezing too much out of the rules on this one.Oh, I agree that that's the RAI. But the RAW pretty clearly say (even if they don't mean to) that whoever casts a scroll can decide its caster level.

Prophaniti
2008-08-09, 09:56 AM
Oh, I agree that that's the RAI. But the RAW pretty clearly say (even if they don't mean to) that whoever casts a scroll can decide its caster level.
Well, still interpreting RAW here, I read 'the caster' as the person who creates the scroll. Note that 'the caster' is mentioned in the sentence where it talks about the caster level of the spell in question, thus it is pretty obvious that it is referring to the caster who scribed the scroll in the first place. Someone who finds/buys/wishes for a scroll would be the 'user'. That's how I read it, as written. The whole 'caster can choose the level, and the caster is me' is a big stretch, no DM would allow it, and I don't buy it in a theoretical discussion either.

Anyway, yeah, the problem is the negation of the xp cost for Wish. IMO, xp costs for Wish should NEVER be negated and always paid by the person making the wish. It's pretty obvious that they never had anyone even remotely intelligent playtest with access to the Wish spell.

Draz74
2008-08-09, 03:05 PM
I think what we really need to be figuring out, though, is the side effects that this Planet Bubble would cause. They are dire indeed!

If the spell is cast with CL 24 million, it will last 24 million minutes. Which is something like 40 years. OK, I guess that's not too bad, in and of itself. We don't really rely on anything from space, except solar radiation, reaching us within a 50-year period. (And the spell is transparent, right? so solar radiation is fine.)

However, the spell seems stationary, unless its caster wills it to move, within the reference frame of the governing gravitational body of the area in which it is cast. And if the sphere is that big, its governing gravitational body is the sun, not the earth. So pretty soon, you'll have the earth slamming into the side of the (relatively stationary) spell?

Even assuming that isn't a problem because it's too much of mixing D&D with Physics, you can't deny that you've just divided the effective weight of everything in the world by sixteen. Again, I'll ignore whether this means the earth, suddenly weighing much less than normal, goes hurtling out of its normal orbit (or, more likely, goes into orbit around the moon -- whee!). But ... babies start floating out of their cribs when a slight breeze goes through their room? Leaves never stay on the ground long enough to be raked again? Tornadoes and earthquakes send buildings flying ... further than usual? The ocean swells out of its normal bed? Everyone can jump half a mile without even trying?

I think a wizard who casts this spell, even with his 37 Intelligence, is scarcely going to be prepared for all of the consequences he will unleash, and will spend the rest of his career on cleanup duty. :smallbiggrin:

Kami2awa
2008-08-09, 04:44 PM
Surely putting a shield around the whole Earth is achieveable with Epic Magic?

Aquillion
2008-08-09, 08:52 PM
Also, might I suggest using Telekinetic Sphere instead of ORS? That way, you can use the entire planet as your own personal spaceship.

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-09, 08:54 PM
Also, might I suggest using Telekinetic Sphere instead of ORS? That way, you can use the entire planet as your own personal spaceship.
The earth weighs to much. You can't move planets with TK sphere.

Aquillion
2008-08-09, 09:55 PM
The earth weighs to much. You can't move planets with TK sphere.No, I think you'll find the typical D&D planet has no listed weight.

Alleine
2008-08-09, 11:07 PM
However, the spell seems stationary, unless its caster wills it to move, within the reference frame of the governing gravitational body of the area in which it is cast. And if the sphere is that big, its governing gravitational body is the sun, not the earth. So pretty soon, you'll have the earth slamming into the side of the (relatively stationary) spell?

I was thinking of that argument, but why bring the sun into the equation? There's no need really. This is between the earth and some comet/asteroid/whatever. There's no need for the sun to be involved. The spell doesn't state that the spell is stationary to the nearest governing gravitational body. Otherwise walls of force, immovable rods, and TK spheres and such would all put at least a little dent in the planet every time they were cast.

Of course, by RAW this is how it should work since it says walls of force are immovable, but then there would be significantly less of the world to go around what with adventurers casting the spell like it was candy.

Ascension
2008-08-09, 11:22 PM
Isn't the standard D&D setting a flat earth? I've always thought of the Prime Material as being flat. And comets and the like are just the movements of the celestial spheres. Though they may bring bad luck, they couldn't possibly hit the earth! To do so would disturb the whole shape of the heavens!

Talic
2008-08-10, 12:10 AM
Comets hurtling to collide with the earth, the disruptions of the heavens... Those things are cool.

Cool > logic.

Recaiden
2008-08-10, 01:05 AM
Isn't the standard D&D setting a flat earth? I've always thought of the Prime Material as being flat. And comets and the like are just the movements of the celestial spheres. Though they may bring bad luck, they couldn't possibly hit the earth! To do so would disturb the whole shape of the heavens!

I believe that it is never explicitly said, but it is assumed to be a basically spherical world. The prime material would be equivalent to our universe.

Collin152
2008-08-10, 06:46 PM
Am I the only one thinking FFVII right now?

vicente408
2008-08-10, 06:50 PM
Am I the only one thinking FFVII right now?

I would be, if I wasn't too busy loving the Tentacle.

Kyace
2008-08-11, 01:17 AM
To get Telekinetic Sphere to have a diameter capable on enclosing the entire earth requires a Caster Level of 23,018,202.


However, the spell seems stationary, unless its caster wills it to move, within the reference frame of the governing gravitational body of the area in which it is cast. And if the sphere is that big, its governing gravitational body is the sun, not the earth. So pretty soon, you'll have the earth slamming into the side of the (relatively stationary) spell?

It's actually worse than that. Telekinetic Sphere lists its exact movement rules. The combined Sphere-Planet body will either:
a) Moves 30' a round if the caster concentrates.
b) Remains stationary on a level surface (which there is none in this case)
c) descends at 60'/round until it reaches a level surface

Congrats, the Earth loses all angular momentum and falls into the Sun. It'll take 1,600ish years for the Sphere to reach the Sun, but Bad Things will have killed off anyone (other than the caster who Plane Shifts elsewhere) long before then.

Talic
2008-08-11, 02:07 AM
It's actually worse than that. Telekinetic Sphere lists its exact movement rules. The combined Sphere-Planet body will either:
a) Moves 30' a round if the caster concentrates.
b) Remains stationary on a level surface (which there is none in this case)
c) descends at 60'/round until it reaches a level surface

Congrats, the Earth loses all angular momentum and falls into the Sun. It'll take 1,600ish years for the Sphere to reach the Sun, but Bad Things will have killed off anyone (other than the caster who Plane Shifts elsewhere) long before then.

Sigh. Now we have to dispel incorrect application of science.

1st Flaw: Motion is relative. If we're using absolute rest as a guideline, then anyone encased by this spell would be promptly ripped off the earth, as it is moving. Using the planet as the defined "stationary", the planet would continue as normal... unless...

2nd flaw: Since you use a gravity dominant reference to define stationary, and the planet cannot be its own reference (I mean really, if players did this, referencing themselves, they'd have unrestricted movement, as they are always unmoving, relative to their own position). So we use the sun. Now, the earth stops moving relative to the sun. It's orbit freezes, in place, and it maintains its same position relative to the sun (rotation continues). That means it cannot fall into the sun.

Unless you'd rule that hitting a bird with one of these would cause it to fall to the earth, that is.

Douglas
2008-08-11, 02:25 AM
2nd flaw: Since you use a gravity dominant reference to define stationary, and the planet cannot be its own reference (I mean really, if players did this, referencing themselves, they'd have unrestricted movement, as they are always unmoving, relative to their own position).
I'm not seeing how you got this argument. The planet should be allowed to be its own reference because it is, in fact, the dominant source of gravity in the area. A player's body generally is not.

Kyace
2008-08-11, 02:34 AM
I'd recalled Dyson shell spheres not exerting or having exerted on it any net gravitation pull on a body mass inside it, IE you can't put a solid shell in "orbit" around a planet it encircles. Thus, the Telekinetic Sphere would fall toward the next strongest gravitational pull, that of the Sun. Telekinetic Sphere's are not immobile, they have rules for falling, by RAW. So yes, a Telekinetic Sphere-Bird system would fall.


Such a shell would have no net gravitational interaction with its englobed sun (see Shell theorem), and could drift in relation to the central star.

The subject may struggle, but the sphere cannot be physically moved either by people outside it or by the struggles of those within.
Both of the above suggest that the Earth can't be used as a frame of reference for Telekinetic Sphere, one by RAW one by physics.

Talic
2008-08-11, 03:37 AM
I'm not seeing how you got this argument. The planet should be allowed to be its own reference because it is, in fact, the dominant source of gravity in the area. A player's body generally is not.

A planet is a dominant source of gravity when compared to the objects on it. But the fact that it orbits a sun, whose gravitational pull keeps it in a circular path, shows that it is not dominant on the scale of celestial objects. Which, if we're encapsulating a planet, is the scale we're talking on.


I'd recalled Dyson shell spheres not exerting or having exerted on it any net gravitation pull on a body mass inside it, IE you can't put a solid shell in "orbit" around a planet it encircles. Thus, the Telekinetic Sphere would fall toward the next strongest gravitational pull, that of the Sun. Telekinetic Sphere's are not immobile, they have rules for falling, by RAW. So yes, a Telekinetic Sphere-Bird system would fall.Nothing suggests this is a dyson sphere. Further, telekinetic sphere cannot be used, as the weight limit is too restrictive to work on a planet. The lower level sphere which does not move must be used. And if it does not move, it does not fall.

Both of the above suggest that the Earth can't be used as a frame of reference for Telekinetic Sphere, one by RAW one by physics.
Good thing that the spell being used isn't Telekinetic Sphere, then, eh? :smallamused: Especially since that 5000 pound limit kinda kills the planet thing.

And resilient sphere is listed as unmovable, though the wording does allow for effects of things that are not people to maybe move it. Possibly.

Aquillion
2008-08-11, 04:48 AM
Nothing suggests this is a dyson sphere. Further, telekinetic sphere cannot be used, as the weight limit is too restrictive to work on a planet. The lower level sphere which does not move must be used. And if it does not move, it does not fall.
Good thing that the spell being used isn't Telekinetic Sphere, then, eh? :smallamused: Especially since that 5000 pound limit kinda kills the planet thing.Weight limit? What exactly do you mean by 'weight' as it applies to the planet?

It is, after all, a weight limit and not a mass limit...

Knaight
2008-08-11, 11:23 AM
Your DM called, he says that the rocks above you are looking pretty loose.

Zeful
2008-08-11, 12:31 PM
Weight limit? What exactly do you mean by 'weight' as it applies to the planet?

It is, after all, a weight limit and not a mass limit...

5000lbs of weight as characterized by any amount of mass at 1g is the limit of the spell, the planet which would weigh more the 5000lbs when subjected to a universal force (ie not produced by the object in question) of 1g and therefore isn't targetable by the spell in question.

Kyace
2008-08-11, 02:11 PM
Ok, the first post repetitively says Telekinetic Sphere. The caster can't move the Telekinetic sphere or the earth but it's a valid target.
TS encloses Earth.
TS's specific rules stats it falls if it's not on a level surface. The sphere trapping the Earth isn't on a level surface. Ergo it falls.

As you can't seem to see how a physics for a celestially sized rigid hollow sphere enclosing a large mass is relevant here I bow before your "science" and will drop the subject.

*sighs* Now I remember why I don't come in here often.

Aquillion
2008-08-12, 06:20 AM
5000lbs of weight as characterized by any amount of mass at 1g is the limit of the spell, the planet which would weigh more the 5000lbs when subjected to a universal force (ie not produced by the object in question) of 1g and therefore isn't targetable by the spell in question.Yeah, but that's a houserule. Spells refer to 'weight' when talking about limits. Not 'an amount of mass that would weigh 5000 lbs at 1g.'

If you go to a planet where gravity is 0.5g, you can put more mass on your Floating Disk. That much is, I think, obvious, and follows both the rules and common sense. Why wouldn't you be able to put more mass in your Telekinetic Sphere? It's worded exactly the same way, and, again, it follows both the rules and common sense. It's perfectly logical; the spell can only fight against gravity to a certain extent, but if gravity is weaker, it can handle more.

So what does this mean for trying to Telekinetic Sphere a planet?

Talic
2008-08-12, 06:52 AM
As you can't seem to see how a physics for a celestially sized rigid hollow sphere enclosing a large mass is relevant here I bow before your "science" and will drop the subject.

Dyson spheres also exist at a distance so that the mass of the sphere can out pull the mass of the internal object. Otherwise, creatures on the inside would fall inward. Unless, of course, it was rotating sufficiently quickly to essentially put each individual object in orbit. Even so, the mass of the internal object does not cease to exist, nor is gravity blocked by solid objects (including, but not limited to, Dyson Spheres). Thus external objects would still exert gravitic effect on the internal object, and the internal object would still exert gravitic effect on the external objects... Though the mass of the dyson sphere would also be included, as gravitic effects are measured from center mass, not the outer edges.

But no, I have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Carry on.

And your initial post was how the sphere doesn't exert force on the object inside is, or vice versa. That's in keeping with the fact that gravitic effects are measured from center of gravity (and, in a sphere encapsulating a planet, the sphere's is within the planet). However, that does NOT address how the sphere (or the object inside) interact with EXTERNAL celestial objects, and vice versa.

Further, as a Telekinetic sphere is, in and of itself, weightless, it's hard to assign an orbit to it by anything, as it has no mass to pull. This shows a fundamental difference between TS and a Dyson sphere.

DigoDragon
2008-08-12, 07:06 AM
I'll stick to my more simple means of shielding the earth, thank you very much.
Either A: Four Giants or B: a crapload of bubblewrap :smalltongue:

"B" sounds like it would make an awesome SuperBowl commercial. Asteroid heading to Earth- Citizens bubblewrap their city- Asteroid bounces off harmlessly and into the sun. :smalltongue:

Jack_Simth
2008-08-12, 05:09 PM
Dyson spheres also exist at a distance so that the mass of the sphere can out pull the mass of the internal object. Otherwise, creatures on the inside would fall inward. Unless, of course, it was rotating sufficiently quickly to essentially put each individual object in orbit. Even so, the mass of the internal object does not cease to exist, nor is gravity blocked by solid objects (including, but not limited to, Dyson Spheres). Thus external objects would still exert gravitic effect on the internal object, and the internal object would still exert gravitic effect on the external objects... Though the mass of the dyson sphere would also be included, as gravitic effects are measured from center mass, not the outer edges.

But no, I have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Carry on.

A hollow sphere with a constant wall thickness and a constant density does not exert any effective gravitational influence on anything inside. Or rather, it does, but the effect on an interior object of any given bit of the sphere's mass is exactly canceled out by another chunk on the other side of the sphere - this is mathematically provable (although it requires a bit of integration to prove). Said sphere does not block the effects of gravity from stuff inside it, and does not block the effects of gravity from stuff outside it, but there sphere itself, if done properly, has no gravitational influence on what goes on inside (it does, however, have a gravitational influence on what goes on outside).

Eldritch_Ent
2008-08-12, 05:50 PM
Jack Simth beat me to it. Two equal opposing forces cancel eachother out, and this applies to gravitic forces as well. This is the reason we have high and low tides- It's the moon and sun's gravities influencing the earth as the two move around in relation to said earth.

However, what this means for the moon and sun pulling on the sphere is another story... Which I;'m not even going to bother with since it's a bit outside my scope I'd say. :P

Also also, I'm not sure this really applies to the Material Plane since the thread title explicitly refers to the Earth, but eh. It's still really cool, although my preferred method is to simply put up a TK sphere while the wizard teleports up to the asteroid and blows it up with a well-placed Locate City Comb.

hotel_papa
2008-08-12, 07:25 PM
If you have a scroll of wish, why don't you just wish for the asteroid or whatever to dissapaite harmlessly in the atmosphere, or change course into the sun?

You don't need to do any of this anyways. On the bizarro demi-plane where this much physics interacts with magic, the whole world is already a pink mist and a memory because no one ever listed a price for anti-osmium.

HP

Eldritch_Ent
2008-08-12, 07:35 PM
If you have a scroll of wish, why don't you just wish for the asteroid or whatever to dissapaite harmlessly in the atmosphere, or change course into the sun?
HP

Ostensibly yes- a Simple well-placed wall of force could more or less do the same job. This is just going for broke because it's *cool*.

Knaight
2008-08-12, 08:05 PM
Walls of force huh. I'm seeing lots of walls of force in an awesome pattern (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeehiveBarrier) as having a lot of potiential.

Jack_Simth
2008-08-12, 08:19 PM
Walls of force huh. I'm seeing lots of walls of force in an awesome pattern (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeehiveBarrier) as having a lot of potiential.

Reflavor a Resilient Sphere and you're good to go.

Talic
2008-08-12, 08:37 PM
Jack Simth beat me to it. Two equal opposing forces cancel eachother out, and this applies to gravitic forces as well. This is the reason we have high and low tides- It's the moon and sun's gravities influencing the earth as the two move around in relation to said earth.

However, what this means for the moon and sun pulling on the sphere is another story... Which I;'m not even going to bother with since it's a bit outside my scope I'd say. :P

Also also, I'm not sure this really applies to the Material Plane since the thread title explicitly refers to the Earth, but eh. It's still really cool, although my preferred method is to simply put up a TK sphere while the wizard teleports up to the asteroid and blows it up with a well-placed Locate City Comb.

First error: You assume gravity is a force. It's not. It acts in many ways like a force, but it is not one. As a matter of fact, two masses exerting gravity on the other have a sympathetic effect, not am antithetic one.

Talic
2008-08-12, 08:42 PM
A hollow sphere with a constant wall thickness and a constant density does not exert any effective gravitational influence on anything inside. Or rather, it does, but the effect on an interior object of any given bit of the sphere's mass is exactly canceled out by another chunk on the other side of the sphere - this is mathematically provable (although it requires a bit of integration to prove). Said sphere does not block the effects of gravity from stuff inside it, and does not block the effects of gravity from stuff outside it, but there sphere itself, if done properly, has no gravitational influence on what goes on inside (it does, however, have a gravitational influence on what goes on outside).

This is true at one point and one point only. The precise center of gravity of the sphere.

Otherwise, as gravity's effect is inversely and exponentially proportional to distance, matter on one side of the mass inside the sphere will have a greater amount of pull on the side its closest to. On the other side, this will of course, also be true, which will hold the object relatively in the center of the sphere... Provided the internal object is stable enough to hold itself together.

Otherwise, the object will be pulled apart, and will drift to the outer sphere. Conversely, with a great enough internal mass, the outer sphere will be crushed inward on all sides.

Jack_Simth
2008-08-12, 08:55 PM
This is true at one point and one point only. The precise center of gravity of the sphere.

Otherwise, as gravity's effect is inversely and exponentially proportional to distance, matter on one side of the mass inside the sphere will have a greater amount of pull on the side its closest to. On the other side, this will of course, also be true, which will hold the object relatively in the center of the sphere... Provided the internal object is stable enough to hold itself together.

Otherwise, the object will be pulled apart, and will drift to the outer sphere. Conversely, with a great enough internal mass, the outer sphere will be crushed inward on all sides.

When you're closer to the wall of the sphere, there is more from any given unit area on that wall, true - however, there's a lot more wall on the "other side" pulling the other direction, too. With a sphere, they perfectly balance out. It's provable, even - Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem#Inside_a_Shell).